Management Matters - Liberals fail to learn from New York's past

[Loco Vette]

Vincent Cannato: The Return of the 1970's in New York

Originally Posted by Vincent Cannato, writing for the Wall Street Journal

Vincent Cannato: The Return of the 1970s in New York
A Mayor Bill de Blasio would mark a sharp departure from the way the city has been governed for almost 40 years.
By VINCENT J. CANNATO

Earlier this year, the Nation magazine ran an essay about New York City entitled "Wanted: A Progressive Mayor." With Bill de Blasio winning the Democratic nomination for mayor this month, the liberal magazine is close to getting its wish.

Mr. de Blasio ran as an unapologetic liberal progressive. His two main issues were clamping down on the New York Police Department's "stop and frisk" policy and raising taxes on wealthy New Yorkers to pay for universal pre-K education.

The attack on the police department appealed especially to the city's minorities. They seem to have been convinced by civil-liberties advocates that the police tactic of stopping, questioning and frisking suspicious people unfairly targeted black and Hispanics—even though getting guns off the streets has made minority neighborhoods much safer. Mr. de Blasio's other campaign theme, taxing the wealthy, tapped into Occupy Wall Street rhetoric about "the 1%" and "income inequality."

Both themes suggest that a de Blasio administration would mark a sharp departure from the way the city has been governed for four decades.

In the Daily Beast, columnist Peter Beinart crowed that Mr. de Blasio's victory is "foreshadowing a national shift to the left." Others are more troubled. New York City Deputy Mayor (and former Hillary Clinton aide) Howard Wolfson told the New York Times last month that Mr. de Blasio "has a very 1960s, 1970s vision for the city. . . . If you prefer the version of the city that existed then, he's your guy."

What Mr. Wolfson means is that Mr. de Blasio's rhetoric harkens to the waning days of urban liberalism. As the political, economic and social troubles of the 1960s and '70s paved the way for Ronald Reagan and the ascendancy of conservatism nationwide, those same problems in the city led to the discrediting of liberalism and the rise of a center-right coalition of moderate Democrats, reformers, business interests and white ethnics that would govern New York for 32 of the past 36 years.

Under Mayor John Lindsay, who embodied the promise and then the tragedy of Great Society liberalism, the city suffered through a tumultuous 1960s and early '70s. While Lindsay was in office (1966-73), crime continued its dramatic rise, public-sector labor unions turned New York into "Strike City," welfare rolls increased even amid an economic boom, swaths of the city were hollowed out by arson and abandonment, the city's infrastructure began to deteriorate, graffiti proliferated, and the middle class continued its flight to the suburbs.

As the U.S. economy began its slide toward stagflation in the early 1970s, New York City was hit hard, losing more than 600,000 jobs between 1969 and 1977. The city's massive public spending of the 1960s, funded by a new income tax and a booming economy, could no longer be sustained without bookkeeping tricks and borrowing. This culminated in the 1975 fiscal crisis, which helped remake the city's politics. After years of chaos and tumult, New York no longer looked like a good investment. It nearly went bankrupt, and its finances were taken over by an Emergency Financial Control Board.

A period of relative austerity combined with leadership from Mayor Ed Koch, who served from 1978 to 1989, allowed the city to regain some fiscal stability. The city also benefitted from the Reagan economy of the 1980s that filled city coffers with tax revenue from Wall Street. Yet New York still had deep problems, exemplified by the crack epidemic of the late 1980s, which pushed crime rates even higher. By the end of the decade, another fiscal crisis loomed. During the brief, ineffective mayoral tenure (1990-93) of David Dinkins, an old-style liberal Democrat, the city seemed to edge ever closer to disaster.

The election of Rudy Giuliani in 1993 revived the city's fortunes. The former federal prosecutor made reducing crime his top priority. As crime declined dramatically during his two terms as mayor (1994-2001), the city opened for redevelopment and investment. While benefiting from the Wall Street boom of the '90s, Mayor Guiliani sought to control taxes and limit the influence of public unions to maintain fiscal discipline. In many ways, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has continued and built on that legacy.

Today, the Koch-Giuliani coalition has run its course. In November, Mr. de Blasio will face Republican Joe Lhota, a former Giuliani aide. Mr. Lhota promises to continue the policies of the Giuliani-Bloomberg years, but his chances of defeating Mr. de Blasio are slim.

The city's demographics have changed since Mr. Giuliani's election. Outer borough white ethnics, who made up the core Koch and Giuliani supporters, are shrinking as a share of the population, while the liberal base of blacks, Hispanics, new immigrants and young professionals grows. Registered Democrats outnumber Republicans 6 to 1. George H.W. Bush was able to win 33% of the New York City vote in 1988; Mitt Romney won just 18%.

The transformation of New York has been a great success story. Yet the city is not without problems. Mr. de Blasio is tapping into genuine economic insecurities in a city where the middle class is shrinking, while the cost of living is increasing. The city economy remains overly reliant on the financial industry, while its public-pension obligations threaten fiscal stability.

After 12 years, voters have grown tired of Mayor Bloomberg, from his maneuvering to evade term limits four years ago to the implied elitism of his belief that New York is a "high-end product, maybe even a luxury product." Mr. Bloomberg's plutocratic tendencies have opened political space for the left-wing populism of Mr. de Blasio.

The prospect of this renewed progressivism at City Hall raises many questions. Does Mr. de Blasio have any plans for attracting business to the city, diversifying its economy and expanding its revenue base? Or does he simply believe that raising taxes on the wealthy is the only way to increase revenue? How will he approach government unions waiting for Mr. Bloomberg to leave office before negotiating new contracts? These unions constitute such an important part of the Democratic Party base that it will be hard for him to resist their demands.

During the primary campaign Mr. de Blasio hailed a judge's decision undermining "stop and frisk," but what is his vision for the police department and how does he plan to keep the streets safe? Since Mr. de Blasio was just endorsed by the teachers union (who supported an opponent in the primary) and has made remarks critical of charter schools, what would he do to improve education other than adding a new and costly pre-K entitlement?


No one wants to go back to the problems that New York experienced in the 1960s and '70s or see the city end up like Detroit. If Mr. de Blasio is elected in November, all eyes will be watching to see if the city avoids an updated New York version of "That '70s Show."

Mr. Cannato teaches history at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, and is the author of "The Ungovernable City: John Lindsay and his Struggle to Save New York" (Basic Books, 2001).

Progress<>Failure to learn from your mistakes.

[VITE1]

Originally Posted by Loco Vette

Vincent Cannato: The Return of the 1970's in New York



Progress<>Failure to learn from your mistakes.

They have a 3000 year history of failure yet they keep trying the same old shit.

[Craig]

The best thing about liberal voters is that they tend to suffer the most for their vote; I take some delight in that. Ultimately, the liberals have won. I'll be dead before the country's economy, and society implodes. The citizens of this nation will have the "leadership" they deserve.

[Sea Six]

This time, Socialism is going to work.

[Bill]

While I disagree with raising taxes for mandatory pre-k, railing against "stop and frisk", AKA violating the Fourth Amendment, is the correct position. Unless we want the strong arm tactics of brutal dictators used here on American soil. "Stop and Frisk" smacks of Saddam, Mubarak, Assad, and other puppet dictators keeping their populace in check using fear and intimidation.

Even as a libertarian, I do favor the taxpayer funded, compulsory k-12 education system we have in place. An educated workforce is necessary for our country to succeed. Instead of raising taxes to add a mandatory pre-k, perhaps they should figure out how to make the k-12 education better. More money /=better, necessarily. Tossing money at something doesn't ensure a better outcome, it just ensures that more money is spent.

[VITE1]

Originally Posted by bill_daniels

While I disagree with raising taxes for mandatory pre-k, railing against "stop and frisk", AKA violating the Fourth Amendment, is the correct position. Unless we want the strong arm tactics of brutal dictators used here on American soil. "Stop and Frisk" smacks of Saddam, Mubarak, Assad, and other puppet dictators keeping their populace in check using fear and intimidation.

Even as a libertarian, I do favor the taxpayer funded, compulsory k-12 education system we have in place. An educated workforce is necessary for our country to succeed. Instead of raising taxes to add a mandatory pre-k, perhaps they should figure out how to make the k-12 education better. More money /=better, necessarily. Tossing money at something doesn't ensure a better outcome, it just ensures that more money is spent.

Stop and frisk is bad for this country. When does it morph into knock and enter?

As to Education most states have Education in their Constitution. And I agree it should be publicly funded. What we have now is a process where education is no longer funded locally but Federally and we are spending more than almost any other Industrialized country and getting so much less. The primary reason for that is federal government meddling and the Public employee unions.

Fix the root cause problems first then talk about spending more money.