Dear Editor,
I can no longer support Mayor Yasmine-Imani McMorrin for another term on the Culver City Council. Her staunch opposition to considering a ceasefire resolution by the Council is an inexplicable betrayal of her purported progressive values.
What is going on with McMorrin?
At the September 23rd City Council meeting, Culver City residents once again urged the Council to place a ceasefire resolution on its forthcoming agenda for discussion. Again, their voices were met with silence, deafening silence. Our mayor voted thumbs down as did all other members when Councilman Dan O’Brien courageously moved to support the request.
This was the fourth Council meeting where numerous residents, including many Jewish residents, pleaded with the Council. (Similar requests were made by smaller groups at three meetings earlier in the spring.) We begged with heartfelt words and tears streaming down our faces for the urgency of a ceasefire discussion at the City Council given the mass murder of more than 17000 Gaza children and untold thousands of other Palestinians. Perhaps as many as 500,000 Palestinians will likely die from their wounds or the sickness wrought by this genocidal war, which is now exploding into Lebanon.
Previously, the Council had received several hundred petitions supporting a ceasefire resolution, backed by well-attended ceasefire meetings, talks, rallies, and demonstrations throughout the city.
But still, the Council stood silent. Stone-cold silent. Still, our mayor looked the other way. Turned her back on us.
Most of those advocating for a ceasefire in the Israel/Palestine War understood from the beginning of our drive that the three conservative members of the Council (Vera, O’Brien, and Eriksson) would most likely resist our efforts, but we were stunned to find that the so-called progressive members, McMorrin and Puza, stoutly opposed even discussing the issue.
Eriksson, O’Brien, and Vera were at least willing to meet one-on-one with residents supporting the ceasefire, but McMorrin refused, saying that she would not talk to rude people. In rushing from a recent Council meeting, she mumbled that we had to get Vera on board before talking with her. Passing the ubiquitous buck to avoid responsibility, it seems. An arrogant display of power. Had she and Puza supported O’Brien, the resolution would have been placed on the agenda for discussion.
Puza did finally meet with a few people but offered no opinion nor support for placing the ceasefire issue on the Council’s agenda. Just touched his heart, saying “I hear you.” O’Brien courageously moved twice to place a discussion of the issue on the Council agenda but got no support from the other Council members.
What is going on with McMorrin?
In the most recent Council meeting, she spoke without much enthusiasm on a different issue about the importance of listening to all members of the community, about hearing their voices even if they are but a small minority of voices. She explained that what may seem small to some people might be important to other people and that their voices deserve to be heard.
And yet, she steadfastly opposed hearing the voices of the hundreds if not most city residents who strongly support a ceasefire discussion, as do the majority of Los Angeles Democrats. Does she think that the voices opposed to even discussing a ceasefire resolution matter more than those demanding the killing stop?
By not allowing a ceasefire resolution to be placed on the Council agenda or even directed to an appropriated sub-committee for recommendations, she joined with all but O’Brien in killing the request. So, her words that all voices deserve to be heard appear selective, impotent, and hypocritical.
What is going on with McMorrin?
Does she think that a ceasefire resolution plays into the hands of Hamas, that Israel’s ongoing slaughter of innocents is justifiable retribution for the murder of Israeli Jews by Hamas? That when having to choose between committing injustice and survival it’s always okay for Israel to choose survival no matter the human cost, no matter the horror?
Or perhaps she thinks that dealing with Culver City potholes and traffic patterns matters more than taking leadership on what many of her constituents view as the moral issue of our day. Councilman O’Brien has said that he once thought that way but now thinks somewhat differently.
Perhaps McMorrin disagrees with President Biden’s call for a ceasefire, the leader of her political party.
Perhaps McMorrin thinks that getting together in an interfaith forum to talk about stopping hate will somehow stop the bombs falling on children and that embracing “resilience” in our hearts will somehow matter. (I recall from my Civil Rights days in Mississippi in the late 1960s that White Supremacy city councils used to issue what activists called “Plaques for Blacks” in place of funding for integrated schools. Or called for prayer meetings while opposing anti-lynching laws.)
No one knows what McMorrin thinks because she remains silent, arrogantly silent. We only know that she does not want the ceasefire resolution on the Council agenda.
Many constituents who had supported her election to the City Council because of her purported values on a range of issues (equity and inclusiveness) are sorely perplexed and deeply disappointed. Some say that she will do the right thing when she has majority support on the council next time. As my mother used to say: “If Wishes Were Fishes, We’d All Be Well Fed;” or something like that.
More than a few residents frustrated by McMorrin’s opposition to a ceasefire resolution, suggest facetiously that she is but a typical politician, one who has entered a “Faustian Bargain” of sorts, determined to trade power and ascension to higher office in exchange for abandoning principles at times. Her pragmatism explains, according to some, her lukewarm or selective support of progressive goals, the tendency to cast abstaining votes rather than clear negatives on issues deemed controversial, and hesitancy to return phone calls or answer text and email messages if the caller wants to talk about divisive issues, such as school matters, for one example.
Some of her supporters contend that there are bigger fish to fry and that McMorrin needs to be supported (protected) as she ascends the political ladder. What’s more, she is the lesser of two evils compared to Vera and the like-minded candidates whom he supports. McMorrin is a progressive, albeit a pragmatic one, and her rise to power is fundamentally all that matters—so the argument goes.
But I wonder about her core values. If she is unwilling to stand against genocide, what is she willing to stand for? Are there not certain issues that are simply intolerable? Is not the killing of innocent children one of those? Sure, one always must weigh what is possible and achievable, but calling for a ceasefire by the Culver City Council is to join with the nearly 200 city councils in the nation that deem the ongoing war a crime against humanity. If one is willing to stand silent in the face of genocide for reasons of political expediency and self-aggrandizement, then I don’t want that person as my political representative.
Because of her steadfast and absolutist opposition to a ceasefire resolution, I can no longer support Yasmine-Imani McMorrin’s election to the City Council. I have no idea what’s going on with McMorrin, but she should be held accountable politically. She does not deserve to hold political leadership. She cannot be trusted.
Ronald L. F. Davis
