Rot

As goes NY... (4.00 / 2)

I have long had a hunch -- I can't call it an informed opinion, just a hunch -- that the chaos that NY is undergoing is a taste of what's ahead for the United States' political system in general - probably many years off though.

As for what comes next for NY... perhaps not until the economy definitively stabilizes do we find out.  This is all happening against a backdrop of the state's wealth engine (Wall Street, now) in disarray.  The U.S.' wealth engine(s) - selling of debt to foreign countries?  world war(s)? - haven't yet ground to a halt.

People in NY have become used to this process of democratic rot (the Three Men in a Room being a stable form of the rot)... we won't know where their hearts really lie until someone from outside the system tries to impose order with the threat of force behind it.

Let's imagine what would happen if NY's government became so paralyzed that national economic recovery or even national security started to suffer.  We're not there now, of course, and I don't really see that happening any time soon, but what if the Federal government "invaded"?  (imposed some kind of solution with force behind it - maybe a Supreme Court decision of some kind)

I can see other state governments failing (e.g. California) and begging to be "nationalized" - the country may go through a crisis at some far-off future date where states simply lose their statehood.  But I also would predict backlashes against that which would contribute to the final crackup of the "United States" or "United State" or whatever it would be.  Then you would really see what the country's various regional populations are made of.

(Very sci-fi, I know... and it doesn't really answer the specific question I think you were asking about who in NY politics gains power now.)

---

by: NYCO @ Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 21:19:31 PM UTC

yes and no (4.00 / 1)

National politics at least gets attention.  Yes, some serious rot has set in there, but I don't see as many people declaring it dysfunctional and walking away without hope of doing anything about it.  People in New York who have never heard of Malcolm Smith or Dean Skelos can tell you, in seemingly infinite detail, about current healthcare reform proposals, the sins of Abramoff, the need for a flat tax, or Ron Paul's views on gold.

I think I'd expect a lot more state governments failing before I'd consider a crackup of the federal government.  There's precedent on the financial side - a lot of states supposedly still have dings on their credit records from defaults during the Panic of 1837.  On the political side, I think Reconstruction is our only real experience, and I can't say it went well.

While not nearly enough people anywhere pay attention to their state politics, I think it's safe to say that New York is safely above average for rot.  I've heard a few people say our approach to government dates back to the Dutch (hence the patroons), and that aspect of it, not just the corruption, does seem to be ours.

I'm hoping there are better opportunities here than being invaded.

---

by: simonstl @ Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 22:23:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Very sci-fi," indeed (4.00 / 1)

Here's my hypothetical -- if Spitzer were still governor, the Senate mess would never have happened.

And here's another -- California would be a lot better off with Grey Davis rather than a grandstanding actor as governor.

Leadership at the top matters, for states and nations.

Governors, and presidents, who can influence legislatures to go along with their programs are generally viewed as successful.

Those who can't are not, rightfully so.

---

by: devtob @ Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 22:23:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The more I've looked at Spitzer (0.00 / 0)

the more I'm convinced that even if he'd been smart enough to avoid the prostitutes, he would have wound up impeached.  

I loved the ideas he brought, but there was more than a little "ends justify the means" there, and a definite double standard for what was okay for him to do vs. what was okay for others to do.

When he came in, I figured he was crazy but the right kind of crazy.  Boy, was I wrong.

---

by: simonstl @ Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 22:28:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Impeached by the Assembly (0.00 / 0)

for leaking true facts about Boss Bruno's abuse of power!?

Now that's real "very sci-fi" thinking.

---

by: devtob @ Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 22:54:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

not for chasing Bruno (4.00 / 1)

but because he was too impatient, and had to do things his own way, legal or not.

I'd have loved to see him take on the Assembly after taking on Bruno, but I think he'd have made the same legal mistakes both times, opening himself up for disaster.

---

by: simonstl @ Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 23:28:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If Spitzer had stayed on as Governor (0.00 / 0)

We wouldn't have won the Senate.

Now if he had kept his damn "nose" clean...

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 22:40:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The no-prostitutes bit was part (0.00 / 0)

of my hypothesis.

As most here recall, Craig Johnson is in the Senate because of Spitzer.

Had Spitzer been around to support the Senate Dems last fall, Padavan would be spending more time with his grandchildren and Skelos' relentless turncoat hunt would have come up empty.  

---

by: devtob @ Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 22:49:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

like Confessore, you see to be (4.00 / 2)

seeking a strongman to fix New York politics.

I guess my point was that we may finally have burned that approach out.

---

by: simonstl @ Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 23:32:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Call them strongmen, warlords, whatever (0.00 / 0)

The basic political/historical term is leader, and government, by definition, will always have them.

It's a shame that two of the three state Democratic leaders have not measured up, but that does not mean that political leadership is therefore a bad thing.

---

by: devtob @ Sun Jun 14, 2009 at 01:05:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

there's leadership, and there's giving orders (0.00 / 0)

The difference between top-down and bottom-up?  Right now I think we've burned out what top-down can really do for us, and then some.

The question for me is whether, with elections so far away and party machinery still rusting along, voters will get a chance to add their voices to the conversation about what comes next.  I can imagine it happening, but it'd pretty much require our feuding warlords to make some compromises.

---

by: simonstl @ Sun Jun 14, 2009 at 01:28:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Craig Johnson won his seat (4.00 / 2)

when Spitzer was still popular and we won the Senate when Paterson was still popular.

---

by: nrafter530 @ Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 23:54:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Johnson won after Spitzer appointed the GOP incumbent (0.00 / 0)

to a big state job, then helped Johnson raise money for what became a high-profile and expensive special election.

It seems like a long time ago, given all that's happened since, but it was just in 2007.  

---

by: devtob @ Sun Jun 14, 2009 at 00:49:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

If Paterson were not so weak politically, (4.00 / 2)

the current Senate snafu would not have happened.

The second quote in the Times article, from Blair Horner of NYPIRG, hits that nail on the head, with an apt historical reference:

It's like feudal Japan. There's a weak emperor and strong warlords.

New York governors have plenty of political power, including the line-item veto and a greater bully pulpit than the Assembly and Senate leaders.

Paterson, alas, has not used that power effectively, and now has considerably less of it.

 

---

by: devtob @ Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 22:02:04 PM UTC

warlords (4.00 / 1)

ARE the warlords particularly strong, though?

How strong do you think Bloomberg will remain, for instance, if the economic recovery's pace is very slow?

---

by: NYCO @ Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 22:10:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't think Bloomberg is that liked (4.00 / 1)

I think it's that the Democratic Party in NYC is so incredibly weak.  I think the same pretty much went for Giuliani.  He certainly had his supporters, but I'm reasonably certain that his margin of victory came from people who looked around and didn't see much on offer from the Democrats.

Add to that the willingness to spend $100 per vote and a City Council that mysteriously removed the term limitation...

---

by: simonstl @ Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 22:26:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

They're not weak though (4.00 / 1)

I'm involved on a city council campaign in Queens that's showing me their sheer power.

The problem is many of them like Bloomberg fine and they liked Giuliani.

Anyway, in my area, Bloomberg is ridiculously popular and a Democrat hasn't won my city council district since 1985.  

---

by: nrafter530 @ Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 23:57:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There would not have been (0.00 / 0)

15 years and counting of Republican NYC mayors without a whole lot of support from outer-borough homeowners.

Somehow, the demographic shifts that are helping the Dems nationwide and, generally, statewide haven't had much effect on citywide races.

Time is on our side, but it sure seems to be taking a while.

 

---

by: devtob @ Sun Jun 14, 2009 at 00:41:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

There's different factors here too (4.00 / 2)

race is a major factor...Dinkins fear...Dinkins is so demonized where I live that any non-white candidate for Mayor immediately gets overlooked...it definitely carried itself to higher office and became a big reason why Carl McCall and Barack Obama were overlooked, even if some Democrats in my area came around to Obama eventually,

There was a reason the campaign manager of the city council race I'm involved with said he'd want the candidate to walk with Weiner but not Thompson as Democratic mayoral nominee.

---

by: nrafter530 @ Sun Jun 14, 2009 at 06:48:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not to mention the unions, (0.00 / 0)

esp the teacher's union. First off, I am not anti-union.  But the unions have seen which side their bread is buttered on, and have gotten good deals from our GOP mayors. It will be interesting to see what kind of deal that Bloomberg offers the teachers in the fall.  

---

by: JohnS @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 16:39:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

multiple Democratic parties? (4.00 / 3)

I always think of the overheard quote Phillip reported about the Bronx Democratic Machine: "it's too bad they're too disorganized for a RICO prosecution."  (If I'm remembering it right.)

I also think of the feuding between boroughs, and the ups and downs of corruption that have removed (but sometimes built) corruption.

Through it all, though, it doesn't seem like the Democratic Party in New York City has really found its center since about, oh, Robert Wagner, Jr.

There have been leaders, there have been victories, and there is certainly always a majority of voter registrations.  They definitely win City Council, Assembly, and State Senate races.

When it comes to the Mayor's race, though, it seems like there just isn't enough of a story to unite Democrats around their local party.  It's not a new phenomenon - LaGuardia, Lindsay, Giuliani, Bloomberg - of whom only Giuliani seems like a 'real' Republican by today's standards.

I hope NYC Dems will finally win a mayor's race and manage to hold it for a while.  I lived in NYC the last time there was a Democratic mayor, but wow that feels like a long long time ago!  

---

by: simonstl @ Sun Jun 14, 2009 at 00:47:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bloomberg is a "warlord" (4.00 / 1)

mostly because his mega-wealth allowed him to essentially buy his office, and also because of his practically unanimous support from the NYC media, who very much appreciate his political and city-related advertising.

But, no matter what happens on Wall Street, Bloomberg as NYC mayor is a lot less powerful in Albany than Sheldon Silver.

As Bloomberg has found out several times.

---

by: devtob @ Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 22:36:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

New York is as blue as ever. (0.00 / 0)

Coincidence?

---

by: Who Watches The Watchers @ Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 22:03:09 PM UTC

Don't think it makes a difference (4.00 / 1)

The rot doesn't seem to be a matter of party or even ideology.

---

by: simonstl @ Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 22:09:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I was wondering where you were (0.00 / 0)

---

by: nrafter530 @ Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 23:54:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Obama the strongman? (0.00 / 0)

No, not exactly, and I don't think it's NYCO's vision of a federal invasion, either, but Obama's apparently working the phones to sort this out.

I wasn't thrilled at his pressuring folks out of the Senate primary.  Hopefully this will do less damage to democracy.

---

by: simonstl @ Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 22:32:11 PM UTC

If Obama is helping Democrats hold on to (0.00 / 0)

the state Senate majority, good for him.

If he's helping Democrats hold on to the U.S. Senate majority by supporting Gillibrand, good for him, again.

---

by: devtob @ Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 23:02:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

if you'd rather be a Democrat than a democrat (0.00 / 0)

that's your choice.

Just don't expect any respect for it from me.

---

by: simonstl @ Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 23:25:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

am I (4.00 / 1)

Am I the only one who can't seem to get into Rochester Turning tonight?  it never fully loads.

---

by: NYCO @ Sun Jun 14, 2009 at 00:38:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

it took a long long time to load (4.00 / 1)

The link RT pointed to was this:

Though it's been reported that the White House political director Patrick Gaspard has been on the phone with Albany, the rumor right now is that President Obama himself placed calls to both Monserrate and fellow defector Pedro Espada, Jr. - that's unconfirmed, but if true, it's presumably to coax them back into the Democrats' fold.

---

by: simonstl @ Sun Jun 14, 2009 at 00:51:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I wish he was calling them to say (0.00 / 0)

"Get your affairs in order - the FBI is showing up in five minutes."

---

by: Cliff Hendroval @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 23:49:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Politics and government is New York is all about control and turf.. (0.00 / 0)

Regardless of who you are or what interest you represent, if you or it cannot be controlled, you or it are history, in short order...the political apparatus will gobble you/it up.

IMHO, the decline of organized religion's grasp on personal lives, brought about by a more educated, less fearful, dependent populous is re-emerging in the political arena.  Too many smart people now see through the veneer of our  corrupt system of statehouse politics.  More and more people are fed up, pushed to their limits with the callousness, chicanery, doubletalk, self indulgence and outright thievery that permeates status quo politics in New York, from the halls of the Legislature to the offices of the smallest village mayor.

The taxpayer is being held for ransom and most know it.  Many, like Tom Galisano, are leaving, with their feet, to escape the choke hold career politicans have on New Yorks' citizenry.  

Were a poll to be conducted, few if any taxpayers would miss the elimination of the New York Senate in its entirety.
The creation of a unicameral legislature would at least allow voters to know who stands up against or for their concerns about the quality of life in New York.  More of us are coming to that realization every day.

---

by: hawkny @ Sun Jun 14, 2009 at 16:01:52 PM UTC