A walk on the Wilder side; Doug Wilder is Back

The Economist December 4, 2004

Copyright 2004 The Economist Newspapers Ltd.

A legendary operator returns to Richmond--and stages a power grab

JUMPING from statewide elected office to city government used to be seen as a demotion. Now it is close to fashionable. Jerry Brown, California's trend-setting governor, has resurfaced as mayor of Oakland. Across the bay, his old sparring partner, Willie Brown, the once-all-powerful speaker of the California House, enjoyed a swansong as mayor of San Francisco. Marion Barry, the once-disgraced mayor of Washington (and the District of Columbia's de facto governor) is now back on the capital's city council.

Now Douglas Wilder, the Virginian grandson of slaves who became America's first elected black governor in 1990, has reappeared as mayor of his poor, ailing hometown, Richmond. Mr Wilder, an on-again, off-again Democrat, has no background in local government; but the business-friendly powerbroker is now recasting himself as an idealistic reformer.

For nearly 60 years, Richmond's mayor has been a largely ceremonial figure, selected by the city council from among its nine members. But in 2003 Mr Wilder persuaded Virginia lawmakers and Richmond voters to change the office so that the mayor would be directly elected (never mind that a decade ago he helped block the proposal apparently for fear it would dilute black electoral hegemony).

The pitch is that only a directly elected mayor can reform rotten Richmond. The slightly Stalinesque tower that houses the city's government has seen a spate of corruption scandals. But the bigger problem is racial Balkanisation. At present, blacks control the city's politics and whites its economy; and neither trusts the other.

Why did Mr Wilder run? In 2003 he said he had no interest in the job, but this summer the 73-year-old suddenly announced he would run. In order to meet the residency requirement during the election, he had to forsake his country mansion for a downtown flat. In the campaign, some cynics privately muttered that Mr Wilder, having emerged from a bruising battle with the Internal Revenue Service over a $1m political fund from his governorship, was attracted by the money. The mayor will be paid $125,000 a year. That didn't stop the old charmer carrying all the districts of the city, black and white.

Running for mayor may prove a lot easier than the job. Mr Wilder faces a long list of problems: an escalating homicide rate attributed to the drug trade; an expensive public-school system virtually abandoned by whites; alarmingly high rates for sexually transmitted diseases and teenage pregnancy; and a rising number of poor, black households without health insurance. On the plus side, the city's old commercial district is being restored.

Interestingly, Mr Wilder seems to be focusing on how he will govern the city rather than what he will do. Since his election, the smooth operator has announced that he will replace the city manager and police chief. Now he wants to ask the state legislature, which in Virginia parcels out power to localities, for sweeping executive authority. This would include a line-item veto over the city's budget, similar to that of Virginia's governor.

This request has set off alarm bells among the city's politicians. When voters approved the plan to elect the mayor, they were told--by Mr Wilder as it happens--that the mayor's powers would be limited to hiring and firing the city manager (who is responsible for day-to-day operations). Now it seems Mr Wilder is anticipating battles with both the city council and the directly elected school board. His solution is to attempt to rule by executive fiat.

To the extent Mr Wilder is ruffling the city's politicians, his power-grab may be no bad thing; certainly voters don't mind one jot. But at some point he will have to decide what to do with that power. That will show whether the old pragmatist really has some serious ideas about how to reform his hometown.