| It's been a mind-expanding day. First there was the prospect of principled disloyalty from Tom Duane, then the afternoon's wobbling around with Monserrate's position staying unclear, and now (hat tip NYCO), I see Eliot Spitzer suggesting "a step forward in New York politics.". (I really didn't expect him to chime in, but it's been a week of agreeing with people I'd rather not support.)
The core of his piece, I think, is:
good government groups and editorial boards rightly demanded that individual legislators be empowered to turn the Assembly and Senate into real deliberative chambers. In an odd way, that is exactly what is happening. With control of the Senate almost perfectly divided between the parties, any one legislator can tip the balance of power, and hence every legislator has something heretofore denied them-great negotiating capacity. After playing the role of sheep for years, legislators are now recognizing they have the power to be coyotes.
The use of that power by two Democratic senators, though perhaps for questionable purposes, is emboldening others to use their leverage to bargain for worthwhile causes. State Sen. Tom Duane is reported to be negotiating with the Republicans to persuade them to bring a bill authorizing same-sex marriage to the floor. And the Republicans, perhaps knowing that their control of the chamber will be short-lived, passed some reform measures, that while less than what should be sought, are more than what they put in place during their decades of control, or what the Democrats had put in place during the past five months....
The sterile decision-making that was criticized when it was behind closed doors has been replaced for the moment by the crass and ugly sausage-making that is legislative process. Out of this mess may come a legislative branch where legislators actually begin to voice differing views, argue on substantive matters, and finally bring into the open the discussion of issues that should be occurring in public.
It's crazy, I know, to suggest that maybe democracy (lower-cased) is a possible result of this wild ride. And Liz Benjamin can't believe this guy is saying this. (Update: nor is Robinia impressed.)
However, if you think about it, and if you can turn off your disgust filters on so many levels, it seems clear that voters presented New York with an unstable Senate in the last election, and maybe that's not so bad.
On the surface, yes, Democrats did have a 32-30 edge, though the negotiations to actually make that work demonstrated just how weak it was, more like 30-28-4. The "Gang of Four", "Three Divas", "traitors" - whatever you want to call them, they're the fulcrum of the Senate if you think strictly in terms of party. Espada has as much power in a divided Senate as he does specifically because his party loyalty is weak.
The suggestion that Duane was contemplating his options opened up the possibilities a lot more. I don't think anyone would argue that he's seeking personal enrichment rather than political goals. Maybe he's extreme in the pursuit of that goal, but I suspect there are at least some other Senators, in both parties, waking up to the possibilities.
My record for predicting New York politics is terrible, but I think I see an opening - an opening created by crass manipulation - for the process to change. Instead of simple partisanship, illustrated by the 10-1 member item split that both parties have now embraced, we could see shifting coalitions, in which the views of individual legislators matter more than just which party has control of the chamber.
Unless more Senators move clearly to one party or the other, some kind of negotiated settlement may force this to happen because neither side wants to be a classic NYS legislative minority.
I'm reasonably certain that party loyalty will again become the one true gauge of a Senator's worth at some point, but maybe this is a moment where strictly party loyalties give way, and instead of a strong and static leadership we have a weak placeholder leadership, and Senators doing what they want for a brief moment.
Who knows? They might even like it. So might voters. |
