Democrats and Democracy in New York

It has been a bad week for New York State Democrats. Not only did they lose control of the state senate due to two Democratic state senators agreeing to vote on with the Republicans on leadership, but New York State's most powerful congressman and chair of the House Ways and Means committee, Charlie Rangel managed to bicker with the president of the United States.

These two issues seem unrelated, but they both grow out of the institutionalized dysfunction of Democratic politics in New York. The events in the state senate, which are being described in the local press as a coup, on the surface speak to the lack of party discipline among senate Democrats in New York, but on a more important level they demonstrate the price of one party dominance in New York City that is so great that candidates from an enormous ideological range identify themselves as Democrats. Legislative elections in New York City are decided by generally low turnout Democratic primaries with the general election being essentially a formality. There is, therefore, not only little incentive to run as anything but a Democrat, but frequently little known about candidates who sneak through low turnout multi-candidate primaries. While this is not the entire story regarding the two Democratic senators who effectively turned the senate over to the Republicans, the problem is still real.

The Democratic Party in New York, because it really is almost everything to almost everybody, has no ability to enforce party discipline in the senate, or to defeat candidates who do not represent the views of the party. Excessive ideological rigidity is not a great situation either, but without some discipline, parties are almost meaningless.

Rangel's comments illustrated another side of the problem of one party dominance, or perhaps more accurately another characteristic of one party dominance, an aversion to elections as evidenced by Rangel's description of a potential gubernatorial primary between David Paterson and Andrew Cuomo as being "devastating" and "racially polarizing". Clearly a primary between a sitting African American governor and a white challenger could break substantially on racial lines. However, the question this raises is "so what?"

The problem with Rangel's approach is that it comes very close to saying Democratic voters should not have a choice regarding whether or not they want to renominate an unelected governor because the primary might get ugly. The primary also might well either toughen Governor Paterson for the November election or lead the party to nominate a more popular candidate. Neither of these outcomes would be devastating.

On the other hand, Rangel's criticism of President Obama for urging Congressman Steve Israel not to challenge newly appointed US Senator Kirsten Gillibrand was accurate for several reasons. First, it rarely works out well for presidents when they get involved in internal party politics at the local or state level. Second, implicit in Rangel's comment was the notion that a primary for senator would not necessarily be a bad idea. This is probably true, but underscores the inconsistency of Rangel's comments. Rangel cannot really have it both ways. What is good for Gillibrand would be good for Paterson as well.

Democrats in New York will not be well served if the top of the ticket in 2010 consists of two unelected and relatively unpopular officials. If primaries are avoided for both these office is it will represent a triumph of politics over democracy. Primaries for either or both these offices will almost certainly breathe life into the Democratic Party and create a process so that voters can raise their comfort level with their party's nominees, even if they remain Paterson and Gillibrand.

Charlie Rangel is an institution in New York politics. He is not speaking without any foundation when he warns of the perils of racially polarizing primaries. The mayoral races of 1977 and 1989, for example, were deeply racially divisive. Rangel, however, also knows that New York's Democrats no longer vote exclusively on race; and not every primary featuring candidates of different racial backgrounds is still racially polarizing. Rangel himself represents an increasingly diverse district with substantial African American, Latino and white populations. His district also has sizable Jewish and growing gay and lesbian population. Rangel has always been well liked, by all groups in his district. Rangel also should be aware that if he was challenged by a white Democrat in a primary, his white constituents would not abandon Charlie Rangel to vote for a fellow white person. As a white constituent of Rangel's, I can promise that I certainly would not.

If, however, I am wrong and there still is a great deal of racial tension under the surface of the Democratic Party in New York, than a primary to sort that out might not be a bad idea. However, that is a big hypothetical. Paterson is not wildly popular with any group, including African Americans, so a primary between him and Andrew Cuomo would not necessarily be polarizing at all. The bigger problem the Democratic Party in New York faces is how to replace a one party system that, as we saw this week, values party labels more than cohesive vision or too often democracy itself with something that more closely resembles an engine of progressive change.

Comments

[freelyb]

Well, we could have had Caroline Kennedy, but rejected her...

[darker]

Interesting that the NYState senate Republicans, one BILLIONAIRE T. Golisano and two
bratty non-statesman Democrats OVERTURNED NYState VOTERS and the will of the people of New York State.

What's next of NYState?
A coup and dictatorship by Republicans?
A BANANA REPUBLIC by Republicans?

Republicans = TAKE THE MONEY AND RUN.
They're after taxpayer money to pour into their rich constituents' bank accounts
with non-bid contracts and the same SLEAZY BUSINESS that
Bush-Cheney pushed in WashDC.

NYState senate is being stalled and obstructed by Republican SABOTAGE mongers.
Will Democrats do something about this mess?

[auspiciousbunny]

This is the sorry state of democracy in this country. People elect Democrats, and they change parties mid-term, for all intents and purposes, with total disregard to those who elected them. Because they can.

This should be a blatant reminder of whose interest most Democrats as well as Republicans serve. Not that of the people... but most voters would not go out of their way to make demands that government be accountable to anything but big money. We don't have enough public consciousness and or empowerment to be motivated to do that. A lot of voters mistakenly see themselves allied with the interest of big business as well, as if what works for the big corps is always going to be in our own interest too. And time and time again this is not the case. That is part of the reason why the future of the middle class is becoming more uncertain in this country.

Ps, the person below who thinks the "federal" government would fix things in NY State has got to reevaluate in my opinion.

[jsgaetano]

This is all about Goopers plotting to steal the stimulus funds, and obstruct any accountability for Wall Street.

[VLenin-Fan]

This is why the federal gove.rnmen­t should be given more control over the states. Do you think our current President would allow this to go down?

[laurij]

I suggest reading the Constitution of the United States.

[VLenin-Fan]

It's that constitution that has caused many of our problems today. And I know of about 30 million people who would say that your constitution did not treat their progenitors very well.

[VLenin-Fan]

I have, and it should be changed.

[glorialovelace]

Not a lot of "Democracy in New York" when on-topic posts to this thread by New Yorkers get censored out, is there?

[research]

Most of the Federal Reserve money goes to NY dealer banks, most of the Banksters are in NY, this is all about TARP citizen money being used to buy our governmnet.

[WilliamGossett]

NY Democrats are similar to National GOP - shoot themselves in the foot. The National Democratic Party has been, for the meantime, dragged away from this by the Obama victory but under the prior leadership was defeat bound as it has been for many decades. There is a natural "regression to the mean" and the Democrats will naturally seek their normal loser status. They are comfortable with that.

For now, the National GOP hasn't been able to take advantage of this but will, as they have before, and the Democrats wil again crumble and blame their defeats on the GOP rather than on themselves.

[truegreen]

my local NY news is reporting the White House is stepping in and one of the switching slimy democrats may have buyer's remorse.

[DinkSinger]

"[O]ne party dominance" does not describe the situation in New York. When the Democrats won their single vote majority in the state senate last November it was for the first time since 1964 when they took power on Lyndon Johnson's coattails for a single session. Prior to that Democrats last held a majority in the state senate in the 1930s.

"There is ... frequently little known about candidates who sneak through low turnout multi-candidate primaries. While this is not the entire story regarding the two Democratic senators who effectively turned the senate over to the Republicans, the problem is still real." At least in the case of one of the two, freshman Senator Hiram Monserrate, it is no part of the story at all. Monserrate had served on the City Council since 2002 and was well known when he first ran in a primary against long-time senator John Sabini in 2006. He lost by about 200 votes. In 2008 after Monserrate received the endorsement of the Democratic district leaders, Sabini was appointed chair of the Racing and Wagering Board to prevent a primary. Monserrate ran unopposed.