I was surprised to see the Times venting about the need for elections in an editorial. “Any New Yorker who is not furious at the mention of their state capital, Albany, has not been paying attention,” according to the newspaper. So we should write letters and ask them nicely to do better, and give them credit for the slightest improvement? Perhaps not. “The place needs a thorough cleaning — a giant broom to sweep out the rascals, starting with the State Legislature. We are not in favor of term limits, but the idea gains currency when most people who get elected in New York State keep their seats until they retire, die or go to jail.” That does seem to be the two options doesn’t it — term limits or perpetual incumbency? Except at the state and federal level, where there is only one option, because they aren’t going to put term limits on themselves. “So, here is how to change Albany: find and support somebody daring and thick-skinned enough to run against the local legislator.” Well, from their lips to God’s ears. But I can’t help but contrast this editorial with the response of the newspaper when I took the trouble to run myself (as I wrote about here)– ignore what I was saying despite repeated requests, and then publish an editorial just before Election Day that said I was one of only two or three people running for election that no one should listen to.
Just teasing…sort of. What the Times actually said (I don’t remember the exact words) is “unless your legislature is a reformer such as (two or three names listed, including the person I was running against), you should listen to what the challenger has to say before voting.” Listen, but don’t read about it in the Times, because the only article I can recall that year about a challenger in that paper was a story about someone running as a write in candidate (ie. he hadn’t bothered to get on the ballot) by writing his name in chalk around East Harlem. I was very disappointed by the lack of coverage of challengers that year — by the Daily News, Newsday, and many of the other media outlets. To be honest I didn’t expect much from the Times, but felt the need to try because the Times is the Times. Based on plenty of long term evidence I also didn’t bother with the Post. The Sun did not exist, or if it did I hadn’t heard about it. I tried with everyone else, and didn’t even get the phone call and non-mention I got from the Times.
OK, so even taken as a given that nothing I have to say is worthwhile (one has to wonder why then you are reading this) — that isn’t true of everyone, is it? I again challenge the Times (I wrote to their public editor last time) and the other newspapers to create a special section on how to run for election, providing the information required and encouraging people to do so. It’s a little late, but perhaps someone will read it now and keep it until 2010 — by which time on current trends all the local reporters will be laid off and all we’ll have is AP stories. And then, if there still are some people still left on newspaper staffs, produce the equivalent of the NYC Campaign Finance Board voter guides, which are only available for city elections, as another special section. If the Times actually wants people to run, can’t it at least offer that as an encouragement?
By the way, Albany is not dysfunctional — if you don’t have any preconceptions about what the function of government is. It works very well for the dwindling number of people with unearned privileges. That's why they want to keep it just the way it is. So well that there may be nothing left of public institutions, services and benefits when they are through. It that case our future is already getting “a thorough cleaning” by “a giant broom” wielded by the "rascals." They’re almost done, I’d say.