A Candidate’s Personal Observations on Culver City Politics
The following reflects my personal observations, recollections, impressions, and opinions regarding a political meeting I attended. Descriptions of the meeting are based on what I personally observed or understood at the time. Commentary and psychological interpretations are my opinions and should not be understood as allegations of misconduct by any individual or organization.
Politics is strange.
Local politics may be even stranger.
As I continue my journey through Culver City politics, I have decided to document some of what I experience—not simply as a candidate, but as a psychologist fascinated by groups, institutions, relationships, and human behavior.
My purpose with The Strange World of Politics is educational.
I want Culver City voters to get a glimpse into parts of local politics that many residents may never personally experience: candidate forums, endorsements, political clubs, interest groups, alliances, and the small gatherings where politically active residents make decisions about whom they will support.
Today, I got one of those glimpses.
So, What Exactly Is a Democratic Club?
I participated via Zoom in an endorsement meeting conducted by a local Democratic progressive club.
Approximately 14 people appeared to participate in the endorsement process. Based solely on what I could observe on my Zoom screen, the participants appeared to be predominantly older and white, although obviously I cannot know anyone's age, race, ethnicity, background, or identity merely from their appearance.
That's worth mentioning because political clubs are sometimes confused with the Democratic Party itself.
They aren't the same thing.
The Democratic Party is a much larger political institution operating through national, state, county, and local structures. Democratic clubs are generally membership organizations composed of politically engaged individuals who organize around Democratic politics, candidates, and issues.
Different Democratic clubs can also represent different ideological perspectives.
This particular organization identifies with progressive politics, generally associated with the more liberal or leftward portion of the Democratic political spectrum.
That leads to something I think voters should understand.
When you see an endorsement on a political advertisement, don't necessarily stop at:
"Who endorsed this candidate?"
Also ask:
"Who made that endorsement, how was it decided, and how many people participated?"
Welcome to My Four-Minute Political Career
My candidate interview was brief.
I was given approximately one minute to introduce myself, two minutes to answer questions, and one minute for closing remarks.
Four minutes.
Democracy, apparently, can sometimes move faster than ordering coffee.
Two other Culver City Council candidates were also being considered during the process: councilmember Freddy Puza, who is seeking reelection, and Thomas Aujero.
Puza was not present during the portion I observed. Aujero participated but left before the process was completed because, as I understood it, he had another speaking commitment.
And then things became interesting.
Enter the Proxies
A woman participating in the meeting offered to speak on behalf of the candidates who were no longer present.
From what I observed, she appeared familiar with the organization and contacted the candidates to obtain permission to serve as their proxy.
Then Culver City councilmember Bubba Fish also appeared and spoke positively about Puza and Aujero.
I want to be particularly clear here:
I am not suggesting there was anything improper about this.
I was simply unfamiliar with the process, and as someone relatively new to this particular political environment, I found the dynamics fascinating.
Candidates and politically active people knowing one another, supporting one another, and speaking positively about political allies is hardly unusual.
It's called politics.
But watching it happen from inside the process was very different from seeing endorsements printed on campaign literature.
The Psychologist in Me Took Over
At some point, I became less interested in whether I would receive the endorsement and more interested in the social dynamics unfolding in front of me.
People appeared to know one another.
People vouched for one another.
Political allies discussed candidates' accomplishments.
There was discussion of familiar Culver City subjects, including affordable housing, policing, and other public-policy issues.
Again, none of that demonstrates wrongdoing.
Quite the opposite.
It demonstrates something much more ordinary—and, to me, much more psychologically interesting:
Human beings build networks.
We develop relationships.
Familiarity can create trust.
Shared values create alliances.
Groups develop norms.
And people who repeatedly participate in the same political environment naturally become more familiar with one another.
Political scientists and psychologists have studied versions of these dynamics for generations.
Today, I was watching a small example unfold in real time.
And Then There Was Me
I was the outsider.
I told the participants that I wasn't coming into the process with endorsements from either the progressive left or the more centrist portion of Culver City's Democratic political world.
Meanwhile, other candidates had established supporters speaking enthusiastically on their behalf.
I couldn't help appreciating the contrast.
Welcome to politics, Franklin.
Then Came the Vote
Based on the results announced during the meeting, my understanding was that Puza received approximately 79 percent support, Aujero approximately 65 percent, and I received approximately 21 percent.
I also understood that Puza was awarded a $100 contribution.
I came in last.
Was I devastated?
No.
Actually, I was fascinated.
I had entered an organization where other candidates appeared to have longer-standing political relationships and greater familiarity with participants than I did.
It therefore wasn't particularly surprising to me that established relationships might translate into greater support.
That isn't an accusation.
It's an observation about human beings.
Small Groups Can Have Big Influence
Here is the part that I think matters to ordinary voters.
While this meeting was occurring, most Culver City residents were probably doing something completely unrelated to politics.
Working.
Eating dinner.
Helping their children.
Walking their dogs.
Watching television.
Or sitting in Culver City traffic wondering what decisions in life had brought them to that particular intersection.
Meanwhile, a relatively small group of highly politically engaged residents was evaluating candidates and determining whom their organization would support.
There is nothing inherently wrong with that.
They participated.
And participation matters.
But it illustrates something important about democracy:
Political participation is not distributed equally.
A relatively small number of highly engaged citizens can participate much more intensely in political organizations than the average resident.
Their endorsements can then appear on campaign websites, mailers, advertisements, and social media.
An average voter may see the endorsement without ever knowing how many people participated in making it.
That's why I think voters should become curious.
Ask More Questions
When you see an endorsement, consider asking:
Who belongs to this organization?
How does its endorsement process work?
How many people actually participated?
What political philosophy does the organization represent?
What relationships already exist between its members and the candidates?
And most importantly:
Does this organization's political philosophy represent mine?
There doesn't have to be anything sinister occurring for those questions to matter.
They are simply part of becoming an informed voter.
I Lost an Endorsement and Gained a Story
I went into the meeting hoping people would support me.
Of course I did.
I'm running for office.
Instead, according to the announced results, I received about 21 percent.
But I walked away with something else.
Knowledge.
I got another glimpse into how local politics operates.
And that's becoming one of the most interesting parts of this campaign.
I'm attending the meetings.
I'm answering the questions.
I'm meeting political organizations.
I'm watching endorsements happen.
I'm seeing relationships and alliances firsthand.
And then I'm going to tell you about my experience.
Sometimes I may agree with what I see.
Sometimes I won't.
Sometimes I may find it inspiring.
And sometimes I may find it absolutely bizarre.
But disagreement does not automatically mean corruption, and political relationships do not automatically mean improper conduct.
Sometimes politics is simply human beings doing what human beings have always done:
Forming groups.
Building relationships.
Creating alliances.
Supporting people they trust.
And trying to influence the direction of their community.
As a candidate, I want to participate in that process.
As a psychologist, I want to understand it.
And as someone who believes voters should understand what happens behind the political curtain, I want to share what I learn with you.
I may have received 21 percent of the vote in that room.
But I got 100 percent of the experience.
I'll take that trade.
Welcome to The Strange World of Politics.
Episode 1: Welcome to the Club.
More strange adventures to come.
Editorial note: This series contains political commentary and personal observations from my experience as a candidate. Opinions and interpretations are my own. Nothing in this article is intended to allege unlawful, unethical, or improper conduct by any person or organization unless expressly stated and supported by identified evidence. Any accompanying artwork is an editorial illustration and is not an actual photograph or literal depiction of the meeting or its participants.
0 Comments