Response Paper for “In a More Diverse City, a More Diverse Slate of Mayoral Candidates”
The “In a More Diverse City, a More Diverse Slate of Mayoral Candidates” by Katharine Seelye underlines the problems arising within the mayoral election campaign in Boston. Analyzing the ongoing process of the pre-evectional struggle, Seelye gives the detailed description of the racial and ethnical problems that are now rising up in the campaign issue. The importance of this aspect is its unprecedented character that has the special interest in the circumstances of the historical specifications of the city. The evidence shows that there is an interesting perspective on the possible results of the elections and the impact they might cause on the social attitude and the shift in the existing views and stereotypes that are closely connected with the specific historical background of Boston. Seelye identifies the main problems and specific boundaries that the minority candidates are facing, the purposes and social views on the issue, indirectly giving the observation of the possible future outcomes of the contemporary situation.
The Analysis of “In a More Diverse City, a More Diverse Slate of Mayoral Candidates”
The analysis of the issue within the “In a More Diverse City, a More Diverse Slate of Mayoral Candidates” begins with the observation of the ongoing pre-election traditional meting and parties that are being attended by the minority candidates, such as John Barros that is the first to be discussed within the response paper. Short historic discourse explains the necessity and uniqueness of the perspective elections that are the first serious struggle after the 20 years period when the mayor seat has been occupied by the current mayor Thomas Menino, who was the first non-Irish-American head of Boston for a very long period of time (Seelye p. 1). The amount of six minority candidates seems to be a serious challenge for the society that might return to the traditionally accepted candidates. The problem is supported by the financial problems as the minority candidates are still falling far behind their opponents in fund-raising.
What is remarkable and necessary to mention is Seelye’s attention to the details and hidden outcomes when she mentions the efforts of the candidates to compensate loses in funding and social acceptance with the strong polemics and political agitation, organizing meetings and trying to elaborate the alternative strategies for the future election (Seelye p.2).
According to the series of existing perspectives, such as consolidation of the entire minority candidates, although it provoked a series of critical reactions, perspectives showed that the final results are still not identified and the future elections can lead to absolutely unexpected consequences.