| I was worried that I'd misplaced my sense of outrage yesterday, watching the Senate coup without nearly enough surprise or concern. The Republicans were doing what a minority party is supposed to do, and it had been clear for a long time that the loyalty of the Gang of Four was in question (though these weren't the two I'd have guessed most likely to flip.) Besides, I'd cheered up when Arlen Specter and Jim Jeffords grew weary of the other side of the aisle and came over.
But still, how could I be calm about the reversal of a goal I'd fought for? Well, I think this guy has the answer:
they should really take a breath, because-while they will have a clear and profound impact on the workings of Albany through 2010-the surprise defections of State Senators Pedro Espada and Hiram Monserrate to the Republican conference could end up, in the medium term, looking more like a blip than an earthquake....
the new G.O.P. majority will be built on an absurdly flimsy foundation. Sure, Espada and Monserrate will provide the two crucial votes that will make Dean Skelos majority leader, a development that will severely complicate the budget process and, more broadly, the agenda of David Paterson and state Democrats. But by flipping to the G.O.P., Espada and Monserrate have almost certainly expedited their own exits from Albany-and the election of new, far more loyal Democrats to their seats.
Maybe I'm misguided or naive, and I'm certainly not happy about the timing, but I actually see opportunity here. I'm not too excited about "loyal Democrats", though that's likely, but maybe there's a chance here for "better Democrats".
Talking with a friend about the coup, it occurred to me that I can't think of any "lions of the NY Senate" the way I might think of "lions of the US Senate", people who've demonstrated their ability to address complex problems despite the challenges of getting legislation passed.
Some of it's doubtless the nature of the institution, which hasn't exactly rewarded or even made a place for individual initiative. (I have a similar problem with the Assembly.) However, it also seems that NY Senators are kind of ossified. Whether that happened before they were elected (retired upward) or after is an open question.
I think, though, that this latest chaos, however it resolves, throws things wide open. A lot of Democratic seats will be competitive in 2010, and a number of Republican seats were already competitive in 2008. Maybe there's an opportunity to improve the quality of Democrats in the Senate overall?
And for the long term, maybe we'll learn that we need to value quality?
The short term is going to be awful - opportunities lost, state government in turmoil, and probably a good deal of suffering that could have been avoided. That seems unfortunately clear. At the same time, though, the long term looks pretty good to me. |
