Sometimes I wonder about the honesty of some columnists in mainstream media; and sometimes the same applies for those in the unconventional alternatives like the blogs. They never cease to amaze me with their deliberate attempts to convey stupidity; especially when I know they know better. So the question is this: why are people seemingly missing the point in this debate on term limits? Is this deliberate? What part of democracy don’t they understand?
Look, I have come to accept that most elected officials are self-serving, and I have come to accept that a few of them are just ethically challenged. I have even come to accept that some of them are simply corrupt. Recently I have even started to accept this awareness without disgust. Now I just see it as the customary disappointments of life for a political idealist. You don’t let it jade you and you don’t curtail your activism. You just plug on; pushing for a better community, town, city, state, country and world: in your own little way(s). And you do it without much fanfare, pomp and pageantry; you just do it because you believe it’s the right thing(s) to do. You do it without looking for monetary reward. You do it while making great sacrifices.
When the mayor’s bill changing the term-limits law was first introduced into New York’s City Council earlier this month, I suspected that it would eventually pass; after all, at least 35 of 51 members stood to benefit in tangible ways. Still, I awaited the public hearings, hoping to get some intelligent arguments that would justify the one-term (for now) extension; given that there is nothing left to prevent these scholars from overturning term limits all together (unless the courts reverse themselves).
Okay, so we are in an economic downturn; so what? As a city, state, nation and world, we have survived worse. Can you remember the depression? We survived didn’t we? So what makes Michael Bloomberg so uniquely indispensable in a city of about nine million people? As we all know, every cemetery is filled with the dead bodies of people who actually believed they were indispensable; and the beat still goes on and on and on; and “boys still chase girls to get a kiss”.
Have we forgotten that in January 2002, less than four months after the cataclysm at the World Trade Center, over 75% of the members of this very city council were sworn in as rookies? The city’s economy was in bad shape then; so too the overall economy (state and nation). Many people castigated the term limits law that created these rookies. They predicted doom, gloom, ruin and damnation; but we survived, didn’t we? In fact: we thrived. So what’s the big deal now?
And sure, Michael “Caesar” Bloomberg and his staff/appointees do have to get some of the credit for the city’s rebound; but so too the council members and their staffers. And what about the other elected officials at all levels of government? Didn’t they contribute? And what about all those who played contributory roles in all other branches of government; plus the millions of New Yorkers who in some way or the other, contributed to the recovery? Some did it in small ways; others with big corporate decisions that kept their headquarters in NYC. People in government, and also people in the private sector; they all contributed.
The point is that no single person, group or organization can claim the credit; it’s foolhardy to even entertain this thought; far less change laws -against the will of the majority- just to cement some brainless notion of indispensability.
At the public hearings on the “term-extension” bill, I saw people like Mario Cuomo, Ed Koch, Peter Vallone snr, Adolfo Carreon, Scott Stringer, Marty Markowitz, Helen Marshall, Mr. Seabrook (from the Corrections Union), Council member Lew Fidler, and many many others for whom I had some level of respect, make total asses of themselves. Why? Because of their specious reasoning of course. Most of them were embarrassing.
Their arguments were so lousy that Charles Barron had to correctly admonish both Carreon and Stringer, for taking the time to come down to City Hall, in order to waste everybody’s time: both their presentations were trite. Barron’s tongue-lashing was one of the highlights of that day’s proceedings -at least to those in the cheap seats- based on the applause. The presentation from state senator Eric Adams carried the day however: it was fabulous.
Let’s take it from the top folks; and this isn’t rocket-science. The rules of democracy -as practiced for millenniums- allow for competing ideas, issues, and/or candidates, to enter the market place of ideas, where consumers (voters) make choices in honorable elections. When the votes are counted by the presiding or supervising authorities, a winner is declared; and the results are generally respected -especially when the race isn’t even close. This is one of the cornerstones of civilized society. It is fundamental to settling disputes. It is fundamental in attempting to decide thorny issues in polite civic fashion. This council vote was barbaric in terms of its cerebral content. Let me reiterate: this isn’t rocket science.
When you hear Koch and Cuomo talk about term-limits being wrong, they are being disingenuous. Can you see the lacunae here? The issue was debated over and over. Whether they are right or not -relative to their conclusions- is moot. The consumers (voters) heard all sides of the issue: they still voted for term limits (twice). It was about the unfair advantage of incumbents over insurgents. It was also about the corruption of the Koch administration. And further, the voters wanted new blood in the council at varying intervals.
When so-called “good-government” groups (an oxy-moron in this instance) say that term-limits are counter-productive, the fact is: they too had their say in the political arena and lost the argument. Period. Their present opinions are also moot. The best way to resolve contentious issues is with a vote: that’s democracy. Can those who support the mayor honestly dispute this? Can they offer a better way? Why have referendums if the legislators can overturn the results at will? Why waste the time, money, and energy of taxpaying voters?
So instead of being honorable losers in 1996, those against term-limits became sore. In their bitterness they clung to anachronistic laws from a different situation (Buffalo/1966). It was the ammunition they believe that they needed to overturn the results, to conform with their own narcissistic opinions. They prefer to tell the voters: the hell with you. They alone know what is right, you see; they alone know what is best for the city: NOT THE VOTERS; AS THE RULES (AND TRADITION) ALLOW.
These elites, pseudo-elites and wannabee elites truly believe in their arrogance, that they are the only ones -not the voters- capable of making this call. In their ass-kissing heads and mind-sets, only Michael Bloomberg can save this city from the impending fiscal crisis. Well; let me tell them now, that this city will be up, around and still strong: long after Michael Bloomberg is buried and gone. And if they want to bet against my conclusion, tell them to first check in at Bellevue. It is obvious that common sense and reason has fled to obnoxious and pompous fools.
The main overriding factor or entity that could lead to quashing the results of any election (referendum) must be the courts. And it becomes a question of whether or not there are/were constitutional issues/violations, resulting from the election or the results. Look; unless in theory, the thorny issue of “term-limits for NYC’s elected officials” violates the letter of the state constitution (or the city charter), then the referenda done in 1993 and 1996 are morally binding. After all, there is an amendment (22nd) to the nation’s constitution, limiting the US president to two consecutive terms only.
Let me try to make this clearer. In the country of Zimbabwe, there have been elections in the past, where the presiding authorities ostensibly went to great lengths to tamper with the true result. After the campaign ended, and after the voting took place, the losers were made the winners. This is exactly what the mayor and the city council did last Thursday; they did a “Robert Mugabe” on NYC’s term-limits law. With their 29 to 22 vote, they gang-raped the expressed will of the voters. This is a dangerous precedent that lawmakers are setting.
We know that proponents of the mayor’s disgraceful bill have argued, that a state high court allowed for reversing a plebiscite on term limits, about 42 years ago, in a case that emerged from the city of Buffalo. Fine; it did happen; but that was a different case. You see, we have the “letter” of the law, and also the “spirit” of the law: both are equally important. The spirit of the law is what holds trump here.
Sure enough, Jim Crow laws -in the past- were voted in by racist legislatures, and sure enough they were later validated by racist courts; in fact they became the “letter(s)” of the law. However, many of them violated everything that the ideals of the American political system stood for; and were so morally reprehensible that they also violated everything decent about our democratic experiment in this country. In time they were repealed. Haven’t we learned anything from the Jim Crow days?
Look; everyday people -as well as ordinary people- sometimes have very little material comforts to their lives. Most times they are incapable of competing with the “big-shots” in too many areas of human endeavor. These “Sly Stone” and “John Legend” folks always knew that they had their vote. This vote gave them equality against the despotic tendencies of rich white folks like Michael Bloomberg. An ordinary citizen’s vote was weighted equally with the vote of any of the wealthy folk. In the market place of ideas -long established in the political arena- small folks had an equal voice. Whether they used the vote or not: it was there. It was theirs. This was taken away on Thursday last, in order to fulfill a rich man’s idiosyncratic desires and ego-needs. Quelle dommage! What a pity!
Stay tuned-in folks: my pen is hot again; and I do have more to say on this issue. I have only just begun.