In the past, I have generally found NY Times editorials hard to read, as their tendency had been to come up with lame excuses to back the incumbent, when they weren’t just endorsing the Democrat for President. But things have been getting better. With the exception of the final decision, I found myself agreeing with much of what was said about Spitzer and Suozzi as candidates for Governor today. The Times acknowledges Spitzer’s substantial accomplishments, but points out that Suozzi’s accomplishments are in some ways greater, because they were more difficult and involved greater personal risk. The Times all but says that although Spitzer’s record is excellent, Suozzi may be the better candidate.
In the end, however, the Times says that Spitzer’s very popularity is the reason to endorse him. The trolls of Albany, it implies, will roll over before his reputation whereas they would fight Suozzi tooth and nail. And, the Times seems to believe that his insider status would be a help rather than a hindrance in the pursuit of reform. They seem to believe it takes a thief, or at least someone with ties to the thieves, to cut down on the thieving.
We can only hope so.
My guess is the legislature will seek to give Spitzer some symbolic reforms that will allow his reputation to improve, as long as he doesn’t challenge the state’s basic priorities:
-
Senior citizens, the less productive parts of the health care industry, retired and soon to retire public employees, those who want more for less today and don’t’ care about tomorrow, and those with special tax deals win;
- NYC children, the young, new businesses, the future, taxpayers without special deals, and future public employees and service recipients lose.
The legislature will offer Spitzer a chance to emerge a “winner” and enhance his reputation for a run for President as long as he doesn’t do anything to upset the applecart. The insiders are counting on personal loyalty – I helped you win, you owe me – to influence Spitzer to have a more narrow view of who he represents, and compromise between fairness and the existing situation, rather than seeking to destroy the latter to create the former. They expect him to forget that certain interests have been happy to back Republicans in search of a better deal for themselves, and that the machine opposed him when he wasn’t a sure winner.
Suozzi, in contrast, has already done all he could to upset that applecart, even at the cost of destroying the prospects for realizing his own ambitions. I remain grateful.
In the past, based on the articles it has written and not written, the priorities of the Times have been the same as the priorities of the legislature. Indeed, in the early 1990s while at City Planning I was asked to contribute some data for a presentation to the Metro staff of the Times, so that group could argue for its job. The view of the Times management at the time was that the city was dying, and resources would be better re-deployed from Metro coverage to other aspects of the paper, just as the state cheats the young, the new, the future, and NYC children in favor of special benefits for those cashing in and moving out or dying off.
The Times has been concerned only about some aspects of the process, but I have become increasingly depressed and outraged over the outcome. But now, the Times point of view may be changing.
If, as seems likely, Spitzer is going to win, then we can only hope the Times has backed the right horse. It all comes down to Spitzer’s first budget, as it has for Corzine in New Jersey. That is the moment of truth, and at least half of what a Spitzer Administration will turn out to be.
For the Times to be right, that budget will not only have to represent a drastic shift in priorities, but will also have to be enacted by a reluctant legislature. In other words, it is the legislature that would have to settle for the symbolic victories, not Spitzer.
We’ll see.