Further Thoughts on Bradley

The political eulogies for Tom Bradley have confused me. Since he decided not to seek reelection, the L.A. mayor has been heralded as “the linchpin that held the city together.” Bradley, we’ve been told, was “inspiring and dedicated and successful,” a master politician who created “quite a legacy,” who, in fact, stands “squarely in the ranks of the century’s city builders.”

Who is this Tom Bradley? I’ve been asking myself.

Certainly this is not the same mayor who presided over Los Angeles during the decade I’ve lived in Southern California. The Bradley I recall was often invisible, irrelevant. He was “Travelin’ Tom,” constantly flying to far-flung cities on promotional “business” better suited to the Chamber of Commerce. Yes, he delivered skyscrapers for downtown--but decidedly less for the ghettos that formed his original political base. Yes, he helped bring home the Olympics--as I recall, Tehran was the only city outside the United States to express interest--but then the harder work of building the Games from scratch was done by others.

The Bradley I recall was a political reformer who lost his way. I cannot tell you what he stood for--beyond reelection. He developed what the city attorney called--after one of many investigations that clouded Bradley’s Administration--an “indifference to . . . ethical concerns.” He took care of cronies and let the mayor’s office become a boiler room for fund raising. He was politically spent, forced to take guff from a smart-mouth police chief, forced, in his final race, to battle hard against a long-shot challenger who ran on a crackpot plan to buy back automatic weapons from bad guys.

*

Let me say this. Bradley seems to be a nice man. He can convey a deep love for the city. He once represented a great source of pride. His early campaigns stirred an almost Kennedyesque excitement. The old white boys club was on the run, chased from City Hall by this handsome black man of humble beginnings.

Bradley came to power with a heavy agenda. Police reform, rapid transit, better schools, streamlined bureaucracy, economic vitality, safer streets--he promised it all. He was a bit fuzzier on how he would achieve these lofty goals. But he did seem convinced that by force of will and mandate he could influence not only City Hall but other government bodies as well--the school districts, the county supervisors--and that together they would remake a metropolis. He had dreams then.

“I believe,” he said 20 summers ago, “. . . we can deliver people from the fear--fear of the lack of security as they walk the streets. I think that we can deliver them from the kind of poverty and despair that too many know. I think that we can deliver people from that kind of animosity, kind of hatred that’s unknowing, that separates us by the invisible barriers of race, or religion or economic status.”

How did he do? Well, the subway tunnels finally are dug, though it took a long time. Daryl F. Gates is gone, and perhaps that passes for police reform. Los Angeles, with its forest of skyscrapers, never again will be dismissed as suburbs in search of a city. But what about the rest? What about the fear, the poverty and despair too many know, the hatred that separates by economic status and race? Did Bradley deliver?

You were here last April. You know the answer.

*

In the end, I can understand the collective instinct to canonize Bradley now. Basic human kindness dictates a gentleness in such situations. There is danger, though, in glossing over Bradley’s failures, and misunderstanding their roots.

The most obvious explanation for his disappointing end is that he simply stayed too long. Also, his ethical problems robbed him of moral authority; it’s hard to lead a city and dodge investigators at the same time. And, somewhere, he seemed to misplace his agenda and fall into a familiar form of safe and empty politics. Keep it vague. Take care of the contributors. Stagger along, one election to the next. It was enough to hold on to the job. It was not enough to produce a citywide mandate for any sort of meaningful movement.

I hear echoes of this kind of politics coming from the pack of would-be successors. One candidate has promised to take “bold stands.” Another has declared the city can still “overcome challenges.” They all eagerly list problems, but not solutions. They plot how to piece together just enough shards of the shattered city to produce a majority. The formula worked for Bradley. It hasn’t really worked for Los Angeles. Another part of the legacy.