Michael Goodwin’s Op-Ed in today’s Daily News “Keep Albany a two-party town”, presents a perfect way to end the legislative session with some mindless summer fun. Yes, the session must truly be over, and things must be slowing down, for only two parties makes for a very slow night indeed in that Babylon north of the Bear Mountain Bridge.
The article regurgitated the flatulent gasbag conventional wisdom that we are better off with divided government than one-party control. Michael Bouldin at “The Daily Gotham” and Phil Anderson at “The Albany Project” gave terse responses most notable for their dismissive brevity.
Doubtless, the article’s contents are not really worth much more, but the fact is that the viewpoint expressed within is widely held, and not just amongst the bagmen of the Albany chattering classes and their admiring chroniclers, who most resemble piano players in a brothel (although every once in a while they get a sudden urge to take a side gig in a local Salvation Army band until the latest scandal blows over). Most importantly, polls indicate it is a viewpoint with some salience among the general populace.
But Bouldin and Anderson are preaching to their “Amen Corner”. I prefer to sermonize to a wider audience beyond the choir, feeling that those who prefer speaking to an echo chamber are destined to keep on doing so. Goodwin’s “ideas”, to the extent one can dignify them with that name, must be engaged and deflated, not just dismissed, however overwhelming and justified is the temptation to do so.
“File this one under ‘Be careful what you wish for’”, says Goodwin, “It's where Albany Democrats find themselves today.”
File that one under “be careful what you wish for”. It’s where establishment media editorial boards find themselves today.
After years of endless, but usually justified, whining about the depravities of the Albany Bi-Partisan Iron Triangle, and the need to replace the “Three Men in a Room” who run the place, they’ve taken a look at the promised land and pulled back from the abyss and decided they prefer to return to Egypt.
After years of complaining about gridlock and lack of accountability, while their reporters looked the other way, the Editorial Boards have had an epiphany, and become the Albany Village Green Preservation Society, “God save little shops, china cups and virginity, God save the Albany Bi-Partisan Iron Triangle!”
“With the 79-year-old Bruno gone and some of his aged survivors facing stiff challenges, the November election could make the capital a one-party town” says Goodwin, “That could spell trouble not just for taxpayers, but also for Gov. Paterson and other savvy Dems who have counted on Republicans to help stop the irrational exuberance of their freer-spending colleagues.”
This is wrong on so many levels, one hardly knows where to begin. First of all, as I’ve documented here (a far better article than this one), the Albany Republicans could be counted upon not to stop the “irrational exuberance”, but to belly up to the table and demand exactly as much for their own pet projects, which differed from those of the Democrats only in being targeted far more at the greedy than the needy.
However, sometimes the Republicans were capable of surprises, such as when they engaged in bidding wars with the Democrats in order to buy the support of constituencies thought to be outside of their normal purview. Say “1199” to the Senate Republicans, and they’ll shout back “1200”.
Goodwin continues, “Many Dems watched in horror as Eliot Spitzer played Ahab and became obsessed with ousting Bruno and taking over the Senate.”
Yes, the prospect of a government where the public is able to determine accountability, a government where the party in power has no excuses for not enacting its program and can’t shift blame on those evil Senate Republicans, a government where one can no longer pass one-house bills giving away non-existent gifts to every special interest does horrify many Democrats.
A Democratic Senate would put an end to the days of promising wine and roses and bringing home Ripple and dandelions. Putsch would finally come to shove, choices would finally need to be made, heads would eventually have to roll; Peter Pan would have to grow up because Captain Hook is dead.
Goodwin continues, “The relief that many Dems felt over Spitzer's downfall reflected more than their dislike of him. They also thought he was crazy to want all the power, and all the responsibility for government that goes with it.”
No argument there.
He continues thus, “Without being able to use the excuse that Republicans were blocking them, Democrats would face the impossible task of saying no to organized advocates. Even though Bruno survived by copying some special-interest, high-spending ways, Albany would go completely off the rails if the Dems' far-left wing called all the shots.”
Or not. As I wrote previously, “for the most part, this won’t happen, because it can’t happen; but a lot of people rue the day when they are called to account for this.”
In truth, resources are finite, and the means to attain them are finite as well. Political courage only goes so far, especially in a bad economy.
In other states, facing similar problems, liberal Democrats were forced to become prudent and innovative while still embarking on a legislative agenda that advanced social and economic justice—not merely the “Just-us” of public employee unions and other special interests, although surely they are entitled to fairness as well.
The results have been stronger and better Democrats with ideas that have advanced and improved the party’s profile, both locally and nationally.
Republican’s believe government spending is all a waste of money, and in New York, they’ve been true to their beliefs, wasting it like no tomorrow. Democrats believe that government can do good, and when pressed to the wall, the best of us will find a way to maximize results with the resources we have, even if we can’t always maximize our resources.
Goodwin continues, “The irony is that Bruno's retirement could give Paterson the political situation Spitzer craved. Yet Paterson doesn't share the craving, a reflection of his personal friendship with Bruno and his healthy respect for the constitutional virtues of checks and balances.”
Yes that’s what one thinks of when David Paterson’s name is mentioned, “respect for the … virtues of checks and balances”. Well despite his best efforts, recently demonstrated in the Aubertine Imbroglio, to avoid the opportunity to do so, David Paterson is going to get an chance to balance implementing his virtues while we all check. I can’t wait.
"…Republicans have a fighting chance of holding their Senate majority”, says Goodwin, “There is even talk in GOP circles of adding one or two seats. We should hope for such an outcome. For as bad as things are in Albany, they would get worse under one-party rule.”
You wouldn’t know that from previously reading Goodwin, or his paper’s editorials, or the reports of any of dozens of good government groups regularly cited on those pages.
“Divided government works best” said Goodwin, “because it is more balanced between competing constituents and leaders.”
That’s right, because the Democrats are the heterogeneous party, always marching in unified lockstep. Never having to balance a thousand different balls in the air, hoping none of them will fall, or notice they can’t get along with each other. What utter tripe.
As my far less optimistic buddy, Roscoe Conway, once said, “Having watched Parts 1 and 2 of ‘John Adams’, I can think only of what Benjamin Franklin might say on the occasion of a 2008 transfer of Senate power – ‘A majority, madam, if you can keep it.’ Would a new majority be able to avoid the fratricide that marked the 1965 leadership fight? Would a new majority be able to resist the temptation to replace every single maintenance person and mail room staffer? Would legislative gridlock result when the Senate, Assembly and the Red Room are in the hands of three different wings of the same party, each with its own constituency? No, no and yes.”
I’m not losing any sleep over the loss of “the…virtues of checks and balances”— I suspect we shall have more than our fill.
Not to mention that the Senate will still have a potent Republican minority, which, having been cut off from the honeycunt, might just grow a pair of balls and a set of principles themselves.
“[Bruno] was in truth a compromiser by instinct”, said Goodwin, “His negotiations weren't aimed at winning as much as creating a win-win situation. He wanted his share, and was happy to give you yours. That many of those deals were cut secretly in backrooms and the messy tangle of his private business interests prove the old-fashioned ways he championed weren't always the best ways.”
How true. There was no principal, no matter how deeply held, which Joe Bruno was unwilling to compromise if the price was right. He was happy to slice up the New York pie like it was Hyman’s Roth’s cake with the map of Cuba. The Lakeville Road Boys need never worry about getting their share. As Groucho Marx once said “bring your dog around, I’ll give him a bonus too.” The old fashioned ways he championed weren’t the best. It’s time to end them.
“Albany won't be the same without him.”
We can only hope.