This Year is the Real Election
For Those who Live New York

By Henry J. Stern
January 3, 2005

Today is the first working day of a municipal election year.  You can expect that every decision, action or public statement made by a candidate in 2005 will have a political aspect.  That doesn't mean that everything said will be false, just that that whatever candidates say or do for the next ten months will be particularly attuned to voters' opinions.
 
One good thing about democracy (and there are many) is that the voting public decides who runs the government. The public can reelect city officials (just once, thanks to term limits), and it has the right to throw them out (as it has done periodically).  The City of New York itself and its five boroughs are the only districts that cannot be gerrymandered, and elections there have more fairness and credibility than elections to the City Council, State Senate and Assembly, where the districts are hand-tailored with the collusion of both major parties to meet the needs of incumbents and to frustrate challengers.
 
We know that elections can be influenced when candidates have, or are able to raise, more money than their rivals.  Election outcomes are also affected by the fact that some candidates have more in-kind support from political organizations (machines), labor unions, tenant or landlord associations, and special interests of any variety (phone banks a plus).
 
It also makes a difference, and sometimes it is decisive, if one candidate has more brains than the others, or is better-looking or more pleasant in speech and manner.  Elections are popularity contests to some extent, and often the results depend on decisions made by individual voters on the basis of the character and personality of the candidates.  That is one reason that Clinton beat Bush 41 in 1992, and Bush 43 beat Gore in 2000.  The judgments people make about candidates may be erroneous, but they are dispositive if widely accepted.
 
We think that this year's election is essentially a referendum on Mayor Bloomberg, who will be compared with the Democratic nominee ro be chosen in September.  We foresee that many people who supported one of the losers in the Democratic primary will end up on the mayor's side when they make a one-on-one comparison with the winning Democrat.  Those who backed the losing primary candidates will know that, if the mayor wins, he will leave an open seat after 2009, whereas, if he loses, whichever Democrat wins will run for reelection, and their ambitions will have to lie fallow until 2013.
 
It is clearly in the political interest of people like the city's popular comptroller, Bill Thompson, for the mayor to win, although of course he is unable to say so and, in fact, must profess support for the Democrat because of the conventions of politics, which most people understand.  The same ambivalence will apply in many political circles, even among people who are not that fond of the mayor.  They could say: give him his four years and then we'll be done with him, rather than support a Democrat about whom they have reservations who will be around for two electoral cycles.
 
The voters and the media of New York City traditionally enjoy a mayor who has a unique and individual character, what we now call persona.  We can track this for the last seventy years.  LaGuardia was the greatest in that regard, larger than life.  O'Dwyer and Impellitteri were not.  Beame's persona was that of the accountant he was.  Lindsay, his successor, had youth, vigor and good looks.  Like Pataki, he had unrequited presidential ambitions.
 
Koch, who was not well-defined when he was first elected in 1977, grew rapidly under the lights, and becomes livelier and more irreverent every year.  Dinkins, although decent, did not inspire, and was hurt by an economic downturn.  Giuliani was, and is, not only an outspoken, colorful and controversial character on his own, but he had a mission — reducing crime — in which he succeeded.

Bloomberg is harder to define; his wealth is both the asset that made it possible for an unknown businessman to be elected mayor, and a liability in that it makes it harder for people to identify with him.  Voters should realize the source of his fortune: he earned it through his own ingenuity and hard work over twenty years.  He did not inherit it, marry it or steal it.  In addition, he is extremely charitable, often anonymously.
 
Nonetheless, he is resented by some who are financially or socially challenged or disappointed, even though he is in no way responsible for their misfortune.  This envy is stoked by Democratic aspirants, who, having little to say as to their own merits, make "Billionaire Bloomberg" a catch-line for their frustration. The mayor should go out of his way to show respect for everyone, so as to dispel the stereotype that rich men can only look down on the rest of us. Sometimes, people should overact so the truth can filter through the prism of the media.
 
We cannot say that the mayor has not made mistakes, in word and deed, or that he could not be more perceptive or considerate in dealing with others.  There is a real problem in outreach: he does not need anyone's money, but he does need their friendship and support.  People have given money to and become involved with his opponents simply because the aspirants sought their assistance and the mayor did not.  Rich or poor, if one wants help, one must learn to ask for it.
 
The mayor's appointments vary from excellent to decent, but are generally of high quality. He deals with people with ethical issues swiftly but discreetly.  He does, however, have one or two high-visibility geniuses who have not learned to work and play well with others. They should stay through the election, and then return to their lucrative professions. 
 
A problem which has dogged the city since the days of Mayor Wagner, but intensified in the last generation, is the disproportionate influence of city employees and their unions in the election process.  Even when they lose, which is often, they act as if they won. 
 
Can you imagine the situation if the president of, say, General Motors, were chosen by the company's employees, rather than its shareholders?  The interests of employees are to earn as much as they can in wages, benefits and pensions, to be protected from disciplinary action or performance standards, and to reduce managerial discretion as to promotions, schedules and assignments.  These self-serving goals are not unreasonable for unions to seek, but yielding to them would have a strikingly negative effect on the delivery of services,  the ability of taxpayers to pay for them, and the economic health of the city.
 
From the day of his inauguration, a mayor concerned with the entire city and the taxes its residents pay will be in conflict with the perceived self-interest of its workforce.  The problem is exacerbated by the fact that, by law, unions are relatively democratic institutions, with the leaders elected by the membership. The louder and more militant the members, the greater the pressure on union leaders to make excessive or unreasonable demands.  Some would rather lose in arbitration than get a better deal through negotiation, in order to avoid being accused of selling out by their combative members.
 
The mayor has, of course, the advantage of incumbency.  He and his staff shape the news to a considerable extent.  But that advantage also confers the disadvantage of having to make difficult decisions, and being the person against whom people take out every feeling of injustice that they endure or imagine.
 
One decision the mayor has made and stuck with is not to lay off city employees for economic reasons.  Of the last four mayors, Beame and Dinkins laid off tens of thousands of people in Fiscal Crises I and II.  They each served one term.  Koch and Giuliani did not lay off employees en masse, and they were reelected.  Mayor Bloomberg wants to be like Koch and Giuliani, both of whom supported him in 2001.  The problem for him, and for Speaker Gifford Miller, will be how to balance the city's enormous budget without layoffs.
 
The FY 2006 budget will probably achieve balance on the basis of the receipt of higher revenues than anticipated, and some new scheme(s) concocted by the resident fiscal guru, Deputy Mayor Marc Shaw, possibly taking the Port Authority's airport lease payment as a one-shot.  Shaw is acclaimed for financial dexterity, but, as he knows, that will not solve the problem of the city's chronic and substantial budgetary imbalance, which is worsening with rising Medicaid, pension and interest costs. We only look good in comparison with the State of New York, whose deficit is twice ours.  To hack away at the imbalance will require the type of courage which is not to be found to appear during election years, for reasons of self-preservation, which with reason is called "the first law of nature."

BTW (as they now write), Joseph Mercurio wrote an informative article on the 2005 mayoral election in today's Gotham Gazette.  His viewpoint is that of the professional political adviser, which is what he has been for thirty years.