"We Have to Try"

How down-ballot races can offer hopeful views into the future.

Edvard Munch’s “The Sun” via Wikimedia Commons.

On a sweltering evening this past June, about 300 of us sat shoulder-to-shoulder on the wooden pews of the Old Dutch Church in Kingston, N.Y., fanning our faces and mopping our brows as we watched the Democratic primary debate for the area’s New York State Assembly seat.

In NY-103, the Democratic primary is essentially the election, since the Democratic nominee is all but assured of winning the seat in this reliably blue district.

So the conversation was very different from what we’re hearing on a national level. To me, that made it more interesting, since incumbent Sarahana Shrestha, a progressive, and challenger Gabi Madden, a moderate, agree on the basics. Both candidates said abortion should be legal, climate change is a big problem, and schoolchildren should get free lunches. Their stated goals were largely the same, but they had very different views on how to reach them.

June was an emotional and political lifetime ago, and the demographics of my area don’t reflect the country at large—although there are several Trump signs in my neighborhood. Still, I think my hometown race offers useful insights, because it centers around a question that I don’t hear very much at the national level: What is an elected official for?

In the presidential race, we have the choice between an intelligent and charismatic professional who believes in democracy, and an ill-tempered convicted felon whose stated ambition is to be a dictator. Like most Democrats, I’m in a perpetual state of shock that such a race is even close. If you’re considering voting for the aspiring autocrat, I have no idea what to say to you. Anyway, you probably don’t subscribe to this newsletter.

I’m glad to see good people rallying to support Kamala Harris. For the next three months, the presidential race will necessarily be locked into a debate of Sane vs. Bonkers. But I hope this election season also provides room for a wider conversation. City, state and legislative races get overshadowed by presidential races, but the public servants holding these offices are laying the foundation for the country’s future. And in NY-103, the conversation about what that future should look like is fascinating.

At the Old Dutch Church, much of the debate centered around the proper role of a legislator. Is it her job to work with her colleagues to pass laws that make everyone’s lives better, or is it to deliver resources back to her community? Of course, a good representative must do both, but the two candidates had starkly different perspectives on the primary task.

Shrestha is a former climate activist who ran for office because she was frustrated by how much power fossil-fuel and real-estate estate lobbyists wield in Albany, the state capitol. As she explained that night, New York State has a Democratic supermajority, and it’s one of the most powerful states in the Union. Unlike Democrats in Washington, D.C., Democrats in Albany have the power to enact bold, sweeping legislation on renewable energy, affordable housing, fair pay, universal health care and childcare. If those measures fail to pass, they can’t blame Republicans.

Shrestha went to Albany to tap into that potential, and in her first two years made good progress. She banded with fellow progressive legislators to pass historic legislation that significantly reduces the state’s use of natural gas in favor of renewable energy, and she helped pass a law that gives tenants the right to know who owns the buildings they live in. In the debate, Shrestha discussed her work on a measure to enact a government takeover of the area’s power authority, Central Hudson, an organization despised by locals of all political stripes for its rampant price-gouging and appalling customer service. If the power authority were owned by the public, it could prioritize affordable rates and efficient service over shareholder returns.

Madden, the challenger, is a former staffer for the previous NY-103 assembly member, Kevin Cahill, who served for 26 years before Shrestha defeated him in a surprise upset in 2022. She accused Shrestha of inflicting a national agenda on the Hudson Valley district, and she said that many of Shrestha’s goals were unrealistic—a Central Hudson takeover would take a decade. She presented a host of technocratic measures and carve-outs that would bring funding to the district.

In short, Shrestha was trying to change the system; Madden promised to work it.

The difference between the two candidates’ philosophies became most clear while discussing a shuttered environmental initiative designed to encourage use of public transportation and curb carbon emissions. It has a very boring name—congestion pricing—and if you don’t live in or near New York City that term might have put you into a temporary coma, but bear with me.

Briefly: New York was set to become the first state in the nation to set congestion pricing—a tolling program that would have charged stiff fees to people who drove into a high-density section of Manhattan. The revenue from those tolls would be used toward much-needed upgrades to New York’s fraying mass transit system. Hundreds of millions of dollars had already been spent on the program, but at the last minute Governor Kathy Hochul indefinitely paused the initiative, even after stumping for it months earlier.

Shrestha, the climate activist, was frustrated by the governor’s about-face, and declared she was always going to support public transportation, no matter what.

Madden said she opposed the measure from the start, explaining that it was unfair to our district’s constituents—who, living 100 miles north of New York City, don’t rely on the subway for their daily activities, but do drive to Manhattan sometimes. “I think it’s really important that we’re addressing climate change, and I know that that’s what the intent of congestion pricing was. However, I do not want it to fall on the backs of my constituents,” she said.

This got a big round of applause, as did Madden’s similarly isolationist view on the affordable-housing problem, which has been particularly pronounced in this area since the pandemic. “I’m not that concerned about what’s going on in Long Island or in New York City because they have their own respective assembly members,” said Madden.

This also drew cheers. Shrestha pointed out that when people are priced out of New York City they move to the Hudson Valley.

Shrestha was calm and often funny throughout the debate, but in her closing statement, she expressed weariness, talking about how demoralizing it is to try and change such a calcified system and sharing that she’d rather stay home with her puppy and watch Netflix. But she also said this:

I would not have run for office and worked so hard to win if I did not believe that this district I represent is hungry to lead the state, hungry not just to fight for scraps for ourselves, but actually all New Yorkers. Nobody sent me to Albany to lead from fear of failure. They sent me because we have to try.

When Madden gave her closing statement, she spoke with the brusque efficiency of a PowerPoint deck as she promised to get constituents their slice of the pie.

Shrestha won, by a significant margin.

Madden underestimated the voters. Shrestha appealed to their better natures. Madden’s view was small; Shrestha’s was expansive.

Yes, this is a blue district, but I still think that much of Shrestha’s vision transcends party politics.

People know the system is broken, and they don’t want to fight for scraps. They’re hungry for leaders who will fight for transformative change. (The Republican vision is terrifying to me, but … it’s bold.)

There is a lot to be afraid of right now, but there are also many public servants like Shrestha who have been working for decades to create a system that de-prioritizes shareholder returns in favor of a livable planet, quality health care, affordable housing and fair pay. They have been fighting for boring-sounding things like congestion pricing and LLC transparency. They don’t always win, and their work is often ignored in the national media, but they keep at it, day in and day out.

They’re showing us that we can do more than avert disaster. We can create a better world.