Full disclosure demands that I admit the following: I have been a friendly, but not familiar acquaintance of Councilman Michael McMahon’s brother, Tom, for about 25 years. Despite this, Councilman McMahon was not my preferred candidate in his 2001 race for City Council (that would have been John Del Giorno). However, in late 2002, my family moved to an apartment on Tom McMahon’s block and during one winter snowstorm, Tom leant me his snow shovel so I could dig out my car. Therefore, I am not without personal bias concerning the McMahon clan, including the Councilman, who’ve I’ve met twice, once in 2003 and once recently, for a combined period of about ten minutes.
Full disclosure also demands that I admit that I first met Steve Harrison at a Christmas party in Bay Ridge for the American Heritage Democratic Club sometime between 1998 and 2002, and that in the course of a conversation lasting less than five minutes, including time for a vigorous handshake, he managed to convey to me that he was a “conservative Democrat” who opposed abortion and gay rights. Sometime thereafter, we encountered each other again when, in his capacity as Community Board Chair, Mr. Harrison was carrying then Republican-Conservative-Right to Life Councilman Marty Golden’s water in an effort to dump the traffic problems of Bay Ridge upon the streets of its poorer, darker neighbor Sunset Park. Still later, in 2002, I encountered Mr. Harrison when he was working in the campaign of Mr. Golden to oust an incumbent Democratic from a newly gerrymandered State Senate seat, so that Joe Bruno’s Republican majority could feel a little bit safer. As such, I cannot say that I am without bias in the matter of Mr. Harrison.
My admittedly seat of the pants impression of both these gentlemen was that Mr. McMahon was a pleasant enough, hail-fellow-well-met attempting to convey as little of substance as possible, and that Mr. Harrison was a pompous egotistical blowhard always ready to tell you more than you wanted to know. But personal qualities aside, neither of them would get my vote in a primary for Congress in my reliably liberal home Congressional District, but both would be perfectly acceptable to me as Democratic candidates for the far more conservative 13th CD.
Normally, my preference in this race would be to nominate the candidate who seemed in the best position to beat the Republican. 75% of this district is in Staten Island, an area so parochial that 75% of its residents once voted to secede from the City of New York. Mr. Harrison is from Brooklyn. Mr. McMahon is a well known and popular elected official on Staten Island. Moreover, Mr. Harrison has shown he cannot raise money, while Mr. McMahon has shown he can do so. While Mr. Harrison brags about his strong showing last time, he got beaten by 14 points in a Democratic landslide year, running far behind the rest of his party’s ticket; no one sane is predicting a top of the ticket Democratic landslide this year in the 13th CD. By every measure, Mr. McMahon is the stronger candidate.
However, given the current disarray in the Republican ranks, it seems clear that, barring a miracle, a well-groomed chimpanzee running on the Democratic line for Congress in the 13th should manage to get 55%. As such, Mr. Harrison should be capable of getting 51%.
Why then, am I still taking Mr. Harrison to task? Varied reasons.
First, vendettas of this sort send an object lesson. The nasty things I’ve written about Mr. Harrison and others (Carl Kruger, Dov Hikind and the Garsons) concerning their conduct in the 2002 Golden Senate race sends a message that such action are not without consequences. Given the likelihood of similar treachery as the Democrats attempt to capture the State Senate, that message is one worth conveying.
More importantly, I find Mr. Harrison untrustworthy. Let us try and assume that somewhere between 2002 and 2006 Mr. Harrison had an epiphany and became far less conservative. Would that not be a great story?
What a great narrative it would be for Steve Harrison to show that the crazed lunacy of the GOP drove him to change his politics; this is the narrative that the Democrats need to show to the country. It is the narrative of Wesley Clark (even if it is not his week), Jim Webb, and my favorite upstate Congressional candidate, Jon Powers.
But, it is not the narrative of Mr. Harrison, because Mr. Harrison refuses to acknowledge that he ever evolved in his views. In 2002, Mr. Harrison gave money and sweat equity to Republican candidates for statewide office, State Senate and Congress, even after the vote authorizing the Iraq war, yet he has the brass balls to claim he was against the war along. He now makes the war the centerpiece of his campaign, but in 2002, he expects us to believe that a local zoning issue was so important that he felt compelled to hand out palm cards bearing the name of pro-war Congressman Vito Fossella.
The same monumental insincerity comes across elsewhere. When I met Mr. Harrison, probably in the late 1990s, he was a pro-lifer. In 2006, he’d evolved enough to tell to the Brooklyn Paper, "I fall somewhat in the middle…I think a woman has the right to choose, but not to rely solely on abortion for birth control." Today his supporters insist he is 100% pro-choice, and trumpet an endorsement by Gloria Steinem, who surely never saw the 2006 remarks. Similarly, in 2006, he also told the Brooklyn Paper that he favored the death penalty under certain circumstances, but now complains that his opponent supports capital punishment. And yet, no one acknowledges that any evolution has taken place. What’s up with that?
It may very well be that Mr. Harrison has decided to parrot the positions of the "progressives” who’ve taken him in as one of their own. If so, then voters can rest assured that as long as Mr. Harrison’s been briefed on a social issue which concerns them, he’ll say the right thing. But surely, such a shotgun wedding of candidate and principle has its limits.
As I’ve pointed out before, even a pol as personally honest as Peter Vallone., Sr. (who Mr. McMahon's brother used to work for) could not be trusted to be maintain his insincerity in the face of a contrary belief system. A devout Catholic and social reactionary, Vallone's ambitions ultimately led him to become a timid supporter of gay rights and choice, but while he mouthed the right words, he could never really dance to the music. When carefully prepped, Vallone regurgitated his liberal talking points without passion, but if something new came up, he fell back on what he really felt; at one point in his 1998 governor's race, he was caught off guard during an interview and came out for school prayer. That was the real Peter Vallone, and the I suspect that the real Steve Harrison isn't too different in his views, although Harrison does have the virtue(?) of being able to articulate his newly discovered social liberalism with some passion, something Mr. Vallone could never manage (in fairness, Vallone could never manage to convey passion for the things he really cared about, either).
I am not saying Mr. McMahon is superior in this regard. I suspect that Mr. McMahon’s liberal positions on some social matters like abortion may also be the product of calculation, although McMahon does seem to have been more consistent (though I would not go into shock if someone proved this were not the case). But in many ways these two candidates are like peas from the same pod; as I’ve noted previously, Mr. Harrison discovered that he opposed the war in Iraq about five minutes after first deciding he was running for Congress; it appears to have taken Mr. McMahon almost twice that long after making his decision. That is almost a dime’s worth of difference, although in both cases, better late than never.
I will also concede that the fact that Mr. Harrison has locked himself into more enlightened positions on some issues is a point in his favor, and will continue to be so for at least as long as he finds it politically convenient. Remember, another local zoning issue could arise at any moment.
Mr. Harrison’s supporters have made a big deal in the blogocracy about McMahon’s co-sponsorship of an idiotic resolution in support of a constitutional amendment to ban flag-burning. Now, flag-burning is a politically counterproductive activity engaged in by imbeciles. It is unpopular because it should be. But, it is also protected by the First Amendment. In fact, it exemplifies why we need a First Amendment—except in a totalitarian society, no one needs constitutional protections to express views which are popular.
I am proud to live in a country where I'm allowed to burn my flag–it's what makes my flag worth saluting. It perturbs me that some people want to prevent desecration of the flag by instead desecrating the Bill of Rights, and I’ve taken candidates to task for it previously.
But, those people include not only opportunistic or misguided politicians, but also liberal Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who, unlike Antonin Scalia, would not even read the un-desecrated First Amendment to protect flag-burning. Moreover, the best way to keep such an execrable constitutional amendment from passing is to keep it from coming to a vote; the best way to keep it from coming to a vote is to expand the House's Democratic Majority, and the best way for residents of the 13th CD to ensure the expansion of the House’s Democratic Majority is to nominate Mr. McMahon for Congress. However, it is certainly fair game for “progressives” to criticize Mr. McMahon on this issue, provided their candidate has a different position. Does he?
I'll make Steve Harrison this offer. Produce for me a clear unequivocal statement in which you state your opposition to any legislation or constitutional amendment to ban flag burning, and I will reprint it on my blog, with a completely non-sarcastic statement hailing you for your courage. Really.
Is Steve Harrison ready to make Gatemouth eat crow? Don’t hold your breathe.
But the fact that I doubt Mr. Harrison will embrace a potentially politically suicidal position is not why I worry about what lies beneath Mr. Harrison’s newfound liberalism; I’m glad to overlook a prudential sin of omission. Sins of commission are a different matter, and Mr. Harrison has quite clearly shown a continuing ability to embrace reactionary positions when they might prove to be politically popular. By contrast, Mr. McMahon, whatever his other feelings, has shown a willingness to take a politically unpopular position for the long-term good, and the backbone to aggressively defend such actions.
Two examples come to mind which illustrate both points. The first is congestion pricing. “Progressive” bloggers like Michael Bouldin call for Shelley’s Silver’s head because of Silver’s failure to bash in the brains of his conference members in order to pass congestion pricing. Yet, they give Mr. Harrison the political equivalent of a free EZ-Pass for taking the Vietnamese position of destroying the village in order to save it. Talking out of both sides of his mouth, Mr. Harrison says he favors congestion pricing, but opposed the Mayor’s once-current plan, in the same manner in which he once opposed Vito Fossella by sending him a check. Mr. Harrison has been excoriating Mr. McMahon for voting for the Mayor’s plan, usually mentioning his own support for the concept itself only in pantomime.
By contrast, Mr. McMahon, who ,when he cast the sole Staten Island vote for the Mayor’s plan, was a candidate for Staten Island Borough President, has loudly defended himself by educating the public to the fact that the absorption of the Verrazano toll into the fee virtually held the Borough harmless from the plan’s monetary impacts, and then pointing out that the plan would provide revenue for several transportation projects important to the Borough. Since, at the time of the vote, Mr. McMahon was not intending to be running in Brooklyn, one can speculate about whether he would have shown such fortitude had he known that many of his future voters would be held far less harmless from the plan’s new fees. But, McMahon has nonetheless shown an ability to take the far less easy position–the one that requires explanation, rather than a simply feeding popular ignorance as Mr. Harrison has done.
Finally, and most disgracefully for Mr. Harrison, we turn to the matter of property taxes.
I know Mr. Harrison is the favored candidate of those who believe 9-11 changed nothing (as well as the candidate of many with far less objectionable beliefs–I myself think the pendulum has swung way too far away from protecting our civil liberties), but there are limits; limits of decency.
When Michael Bloomberg (and it could just as easily been Mark Green) took office on January 1, 2002, New York had just been devastated by the first foreign attack upon our mainland since the 1812 war. A large part of Lower Manhattan, and all that it meant for the city economy, lay in ruins, eviscerating tax revenues, while the costs of coping with the damage ate further gaping holes into the City budget. It was anticipated that there would be a six billion dollar revenue hole to accompany the hole we already had in the ground. The only options were to raise taxes or drastically cut services.
The City attempted to enhance its revenues, but was stymied at every turn by the need for cooperation from George Pataki and Joe Bruno. There was only one tax increase the City could enact for itself without their cooperation which would do what was necessary; it was the property tax. The new council voted a record-breaking tax increase of 18.5% because it had no choice. Mr. McMahon knew that voting for such an increase was politically risky, but he did it anyway, despite the fact that the two other Councilmen from Staten Island (Republican-Conservative Jimmy Oddo and Republican-Neanderthal Andrew Lanza) behaved like either (take your pick) sniveling, simpering cowards or grass-eating right-wing ideological fanatics.
By contrast, in early 2003, Mr. Harrison ran in a special election for City Council opened up by the election of Mr. Golden to the Senate, which he’d helped to facilitate, making opposition to the 2002 tax increase the center of his campaign.
In that race, Mr. Harrison ran to the right of every candidate, including the Republican. The literature Mr. Harrison paid for and distributed illustrates once and for all that those “progressives” like Michael Bouldin who defend Harrison’s prior support of the Republican and Conservative Parties as being solely a pragmatic response to a local zoning concern are either ignorantly chanting the party line dogma without concern for the truth, or are purposefully spreading lies knowing they are not so.
One of Harrison's mailings was entitled "This is what Republicans and Conservatives are saying about Steve Harrison;" it featured quotes from eight different members of the Republican and Conservative parties (one of them a Priest), and continually mentioned the word “values”, as in “It would be easy for me to say that the reason I am voting for Steve is because he is the most conservative candidate running and that he share are values. But it goes beyond that.” Other code words also make cameos, “we know that in the City Council he will put us, and not some other agenda, first.” As George Wallace's literature used to say, "The Courage of Your Convictions."
Another mailing was entitled "Who are Republicans really voting for on February 25 for City Council?" Most of that piece was a reprint of an article from the Bay Ridge Courier about the race, and featured a quote from one local wag which Harrison thought important enough to blow up and put in its own box, “There are a lot of Republicans who are actively supporting Steve already, and since Steve is running the more conservative campaign, he may pick up some of the Conservative vote, too.”
As I said, Harrison's number one issue was the 2002 property tax increase; the City may still have been on the balls of its ass, but Mr. Harrison was “the only person who wants to roll back the highest property tax increase in New York City history.” In demagoging against the tax increase. Harrison showed no shame whatsoever. Perhaps this was understandable in 2003 Bay Ridge, though even the Republican managed to show a little more class.
One would think that, in light of Mr. Harrison’s unacknowledged political evolution, the “peasants with pitchforks” crusade he ran against an emergency measure in a time of grave crisis would be an episode he’d like to forget; one would be wrong. Like in 2003, Mr. Harrison is still rousing rabble about the 2002 tax increase, spewing vile invective against Mr. McMahon for having had the good sense and cajones to do what was necessary.
Apparently, the real reason Mr. Harrison cannot acknowledge his political evolution is because it never took place. Today, Mr. Harrison is still the Steve Harrison of the nineties and 2002-03, still demagoging against the property tax increase the City had to swallow like castor oil. Mike McMahon, aggressively defends the necessity of the 2002 tax increase and makes no apologies. Steve Harrison also holds to his old position and makes no apologies.
The difference is, that on property taxes, Mr. Harrison owes apologies to all of us whose intelligence he’s insulted with his willfully ignorant, overheated Buchananistic pandering.
Sadly, Mr. Harrison really appears to believe the stuff he says. Which is gets to the core of my problem with Steve Harrison.