I’ve long believed that one of the best ways to predict a politician’s future behavior is to get a handle on what their fundamental values are. In some cases, this is difficult, as the candidates have no values other than “what’s in it for me?” or “any weapon to hand”. Thanks to the fertile memory of Errol Lewis, voters in Brooklyn’s 20th Senatorial District will have a chance to ponder deeply into the meaning of what State Senate candidate Eric Adams meant by comments which appeared in the March 26, 1995 edition of the New York Daily News, and once digested they may want to ask what those statements indicate about the values Mr. Adams embraces.
Adams made the statements at a fundraiser for Brooklyn Republican State Senator Robert DiCarlo, perhaps the most unreconstructed redneck thug ever elected to public office in Brooklyn (Mike Long served on the City Council for a short spell, but he was appointed to fill a vacancy). "Believe it or not, it's a continuation of 'no justice, no peace'", Adams told The News, explaining why he had recently changed his party enrollment to Republican. "I believe that there are a large number of closet black Republicans in the city, and if you take a close look at some of the concepts of the Republican Party, you'll see that many of them are our values." Which values, pray tell, is Mr. Adams talking about?
This was in 1995, while Bill Clinton was still President, and Newt Gingrich’s reactionary minions had just taken over Congress for a 12 year period which hopefully is about to end. Is Mr. Adams unhappy about that? Was he happy when his party (as it was then) regained the White House in 2000? Perhaps Mr. Adams can explain what problems he had with the Clinton program and why he found the Gingrich program superior. Did Gingrich's "Contract With America" have a "Minority Sub-Contractor" provision that I missed? Perhaps he can explain why he remained a Republican until three years ago. Did anything besides political ambition play into that decision? What then?
When he changed parties, in 1995, Adams was no child; he was a grown adult, a cop, a citywide figire, and a former Congressional candidate. Morever, he made statements that had an unmistakable, and quite possibly reactionary, philosphical message. If those statements were sincere, then Mr. Adams, whose views on everything else appear to have been unchanged since that time, is an opportunist for changing parties now. If those statements were not sincere, then he must have been an opportunist in 1995, when the Gingrich revolution was looking to spread pork among philosphically compatable African-Americans. Or was he drugged and kidnapped?
Mr. Adams has long been associated with the “Black Nationalist” end of the political spectrum. I’ve long believed that nationalism of any sort is, by its nature, a reactionary philosophy. Nationalism is “Us First “ held as a superior value over anything universal. Nationalism is quite understandable among underdogs, and perhaps the way of the world (so the evidence would indicate), but it ain’t my cup of tea, and the only time I get passionate about it is when so-called “progressives” defend the national aspirations of nearly every ethnic sub-group, but shed no tears for the slaughter of Jews and Kurds; but, I digress.
There are an alarming number of Black Nationalists who make the political journey from ethnic nationalism to reactionary Republican (e.g., Roy Innes, Eldridge Cleaver) without ever stopping at liberalism. On social issues, Lewis Farrakhan makes Pat Robertson look like Maureen Dowd. Al Sharpton, a long time Adams associate, ran a presidential campaign financed largely through the efforts of state-of-the-art Republican sleazebag Roger Stone, and has a long history of either endorsing Republicans openly (D’Amato, Guy Vellella) or helping them not so covertly (Pataki, Bloomberg). That Adams, who is, after all, a retired Police Captain (not a profession known for producing many liberals), would harbor potentially reactionary views is perhaps not surprising. But, now that the paper trail has been discovered, it is time to make serious inquiry.
It is sad that Adams’ two opponents, the Carl Andrews clone, Moses Moore, and the inconsequential Anthony Alexis, have so far been unable to adequately raise this issue. It apparently went by at IND with nary a peep raised (other than a clumsy effort to distribute a copy of Adam’s buff card, which by itself, does not adequately explain the problem). This should have been dynamite in the Brownstone Brooklyn clubs; instead it has been a wet firecracker.
As someone who urged a vote for a confirmed idiot like the egregious Green Party’s Gloria Mattera , in order to punish Marty Markowitz for being a turncoat (because one good turncoat deserves another), I think this is highly relevant information, because it goes to the heart of whether Adams really embraces Democratic party values. There is no evidence, in either 1995, or now, that Mr. Adams was on a long philosphical journey that would indicate some sort of ideological evolution. I must therefore conclude, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that he was and is a charlatan. Perhaps he can adequately explain all of this; perhaps not; but I sure want to hear the explanation before I cast my ballot.