NYCivic - Act Like One-Term Mayor, If You Want to Serve Two

Unsolicited Advice:

Act Like One-Term Mayor
If You Want to Serve Two

By Henry J. Stern

November 5, 2003

The headline for Monday's column referred to the proposal for nonpartisan elections as "an underdog". For the near future, at least, the underdog is roadkill.

There were many reasons for the defeat of the charter amendment. For one thing, practically everyone who took a public position on the issue opposed it. Self-interest, peer pressure, lack of historic memory, instinctive suspicion, party loyalty and high principle all combined to support one side. Negative.

To the general skepticism of New York voters public we can add wariness of wealth and clandestine campaigns; dissatisfaction with the status quo being yielding to fear of change; the fact that 2003 was an off-year, with local campaigns involving players within the system; concern that nonpartisanship would impede campaign financing laws (which now subsidize runaway victories by incumbents); and the prospect of political parties being allowed to contribute to campaigns, which appears unfair.

The result is predictably being distorted into a referendum on the Mayor, because Democratic spinners are determined to discredit him, eager to recapture City Hall in 2005. Years without city patronage - jobs or contracts - seem longer when one is in the wilderness, relying only on manna that falls from the courts.

Nonetheless, the vote is a setback for the administration and, to some extent, weakens its position in dealing with other power centers. For some time www.PoliticsNY.com, a valuable and informative website when it is published, has carried a clock counting down the Bloomberg era in days, hours and minutes. The clock symbolizes the hunger of those who, out of power, salivate at the prospect of recapturing the forty-three billion dollar municipal budget.

The defeat may have a salutary effect, however, if it results in a sea-change in the administration's thinking.

First, the Mayor should recognize that his election in 2001 was a political anomaly. He was an outsider, with no defined image other than that of a businessman. He defeated an unpopular Democrat, who won a primary by a narrow margin over a Latino rival, using tactics that alienated segments of his party. The Mayor was the alternative to the quondam Naderite, perceived by some as a radical ideologue who did not work and play well with others, as New York City report cards once recorded. (Can you imagine the detailed report cards of the 1940's being issued today?)

Second, he should consider himself to be, and act as if he were, a one-term mayor. In addition to merit-based decisions being better for the city, that strategy will give him a decent chance for a second term. He should not try to play politics, avoiding bilingual education or other issues, or seek to ingratiate himself with particular interest groups. They may or may not remember what he did, but the groups whom he did not pamper certainly will. Our mayor is not, by nature or nurture, an untruthful person. He simply cannot do the razzle-dazzle that more gifted and less scrupulous politicians perform so nimbly, convincing rivals that they are the best friend of each conflicting interest.

Third, he should be really careful when he speaks. There is a certain looseness in oral expression, and practically all of us have said things from time to time that we regret, or not even believe if we thought about the issue. Above all, avoid comparisons that may appear heartless or ungrateful. Human beings speak inappropriately from time to time, but when fleeting or careless thoughts are printed in cold type, and magnified and recirculated by rivals and enemies, trouble follows.

Remember, just because reporters are friendly, ingratiating and seem to share your personal views and values does not mean that they are not fishing for the most inchoate, random thought you may incidentally express, in order to share these nuggets with the wide world, both for public enlightenment and professional enhancement.

Fourth, he should remember that he is a good mayor, honest, unobligated to contributors and favor-seekers, free to choose on the merits as he sees them (although that vision may occasionally be impaired by delegation of responsibilities to disinterested ideologues). He should realize that less educated people may have sounder values and wiser views on public issues than more educated people, and that good judgment is need not be a function of IQ, wealth or social position. Indeed, when dealing with the descendants of the rich and famous, one can anticipate regression to the norm, as well as the collegial conviction that identity, not merit, should provide rewards.

Fifth, he should believe that Tuesday was not a referendum on him personally. Mayor Giuliani lost a similar vote in 1999 and came back strongly. He should not try to calculate which policies will bring greater public favor, because no one knows for sure what will work, or whether it will be appreciated or resented. Adherence to principle should be his standard, because in that area his consensus-seeking rivals cannot compete effectively, as they outdo each other with inconsistent promises, impossible to fulfill.

During the fifteen years I was Parks Commissioner, when difficult issues or pressures faced me, this was my guiding thought: "Some day, they are going to throw me out. They did it before, and they will do it again. (They did.) Nothing I do or say can prevent that day from coming. Therefore, I will always do what is right, to the best of my ability, so when that day comes, I will be able to say honestly that I did my best." That is what I did, and I am proud of it. That is what I urge Mayor Bloomberg to do. He and the city will be better off for it.

It is not the number of terms you serve, but the terms on which you serve, that will mark you in history. Jimmy Walker and John Hylan were two-term mayors. Seth Low and John Purroy Mitchel were one-term mayors. Which of these four 20th century leaders are more favorably remembered?

CORRECTION: Monday's figure on the number of Representatives from New York State overlooked the redistricting after the 2000 census. (The totals in previous years were 45 in the 1940's, 43 in the 50's, 41 in the 60's, 36 in the 70's, 34 in the 80's and 31 in the 90's.) We are now down to 29, having lost Benjamin Gilman (R) and John LaFalce (D). In the last 60 years, New York has lost sixteen House seats.