Philly's frumpy political ways need a makeover

If you want to peer into the parallel universe of Philadelphia politics, take a look at the campaign spending records filed by candidates in the May primary election.

On second thought, don't. It's pretty dull stuff, a numbing agglomeration of numbers.

Fear not. In my role of full-service columnist, I have gone through the reports filed at the city Election Bureau and I can translate.

The phone-book-thick reports of the Democratic mayoral candidates tell a tale of modern politics: millions for advertising, media consultants, robocalls, public opinion polling, and targeted direct mail. In all, Messrs. Brady, Evans, Fattah, Knox and Nutter spent $24 million and used the most up-to-date tools to get their message out to you, the voter.

But the spending reports filed by Democratic City Council and judicial candidates take us back in time to the Jackson Era. Not Jesse. Andrew. More than half the $7 million these candidates spent went for shoe leather. It was funneled to Philadelphia's wards and, in turn, to the city's Democratic committee people.

I oversimplify, of course. But the ancient ways of organization politics dominated campaigns below the top of the ballot. Street money ruled the day, as it has in this city since the memory of man runneth to the contrary. It's what makes Philadelphia the Living Museum of American Politics.

Democratic ward leaders and old-time party activists will tell you the election results show the continued vitality and centrality of the political organization. It delivers the goods and deserves a seat at the table (read: its share of city jobs and access).

But let us consider the facts.

Take the party's candidate for mayor. Bob Brady, Democratic party chair, was the near-unanimous choice of the city's 69 ward leaders. When he announced, ward leaders confidently proclaimed the election over. The party juggernaut would run over the rest of the field. Brady ran third in the field of five. He got 44,474 votes. Some juggernaut.

Take the judicial races. Arguably, the party has the most influence in these races because they feature anonymous candidates seeking invisible offices. The Democratic party endorsed nine candidates for vacancies on various local courts. Five lost - and two party-endorsed candidates who did win probably owe more to their No. 1 ballot positions than to party backing.

What about the three ward leaders the party installed earlier this year to fill City Council vacancies? Bill Greenlee did win nomination to a full term last month, but two lost - Carol Campbell and Dan Savage.

The party rules in the absence of any countervailing force. But if someone with money, moxie and motivation comes along, it can be and has been beaten. Two examples: Ed Rendell and Michael Nutter, both of whom ran and won without party support.

How will the next mayor (Geez, I wonder who that will be?) deal with a party organization that demands more than it delivers?

I see three options: He can ignore it, which is what Rendell pretty much did, confident that his popularity with voters would trump the organization; he can try to reform it (oust Brady, put in "reform slates" of ward leaders, try to tap into the resurgent activism among younger voters); or he can go around it and create his own grassroots support.

Option one is the easiest. Option two may take a while - like 50 years. Option three wasn't viable until recently, because only the party apparatus had roots in the neighborhoods.

No longer. Neighborhood and civic groups have grown and spread a lot in the last 20 years, in some cases supplanting the local committeemen. Folks in these groups have a stake in a fair, responsive city government.

So, tap into this growing network of activists. Find ways to bolster their influence. Invite them to be partners in governance.

It may not move Philly politics into the 21st century, but it will advance the cause.

I'm getting a little tired living in 1882.