Diallo Case Furor Ignites on Ferrer,
But Consistency and Ethnicity Have
Long Been Major Factors in Politics.

By Henry J. Stern
April 29, 2005

As an observer for many years of New York City politics and its linkage with journalism, I remain puzzled at the cause and effect between news stories and editorials, on one hand, and government actions or statements on the other. Too often they ignore each other, with neither following up on important issues or stories.  A favorite tactic of public officials faced with an unfavorable news item is to deny or ignore it, and then let it die.
 
But on some occasions, media attention to a particular occurrence or statement will fan it into a blazing issue.  That is what has occurred during the last six weeks with regard to mayoral candidate Fernando Ferrer's speech March 15 to the Sergeants' Benevolent Association.  When asked at the meeting whether he thought the February 1999 shooting of Amadou Diallo, a Guinean immigrant, in which four police officers fired a total of 41 bullets, was a crime or a tragic accident, Mr. Ferrer said: "I don't believe it was a crime.  Do I believe there was an attempt by many to overindict?  Sure?"
 
Without recounting in detail the torrent of denunciations that followed, the explanations by Mr. Ferrer, the demands for apologies, the involvement of rival candidates in the controversy, there is no question that the incident did severe damage to the man who was, at the time, the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, and leading Mayor Bloomberg in the polls.  It also seriously impacted his fund raising, for many of his supporters contributed only because they saw him as the likely winner, and were trying to buy insurance against his wrath.
 
First, the remark offended those who believed that the shooting was murder, or at least manslaughter.  The sentence, "I don't believe it was a crime," appears to absolve the four police officers of any responsibility for what appeared to be, whether justified or not, the slaughter of an innocent, unarmed civilian.  The large type of the tabloids at the time of Diallo's death captured the essence of public outrage, "41," on page one.  Last month City Councilmember Charles Barron of Brooklyn (the only member to support Alan Jennings by voting against censure), helpfully told the press that Ferrer had fired the 42nd bullet into Amadou Diallo's lifeless body.
 
Second, he appeared to be changing his position from his previous mayoral race.  He had been arrested years ago while protesting the handling of the case.  He was indignant at what had happened to Diallo.  The fact that he changed his tune fed right into the 2004 denunciation of John Kerry as a flip-flopper, with regard to taking different positions over a period of time on policy questions.  Kerry seemed to aggravate the situation by saying, at one time, "I voted for it before I voted against it," with regard to appropriating funds for the war in Iraq.  Such a position gains favor with neither side, and suggests hypocrisy on the part of the candidate, even if the situation resulted from an unfortunate choice of words.
 
Also indicating an inclination to inconsistency was Ferrer's position on capital punishment.  He opposed it until 1997, when he came out in favor it for murderers of police officers.  When he ran again in 2001, he supported a moratorium on the death penalty, presumably for all murderers.  These changes of heart and mind could be the result of widening understanding of a difficult issue.  But the public is less generous, and is likely to refer to such evolution of belief as "flip-flop-flip."  At least, that is what the opposition's attack ads may say.
 
In contrast to Ferrer, Governor Cuomo has always opposed the death penalty, and Mayor Koch has always supported it.  Whether you agree with them or not, and you cannot agree with both, you do know how they stand on whether or not the state ever has the right to take the life of mass murderers, terrorists, kidnappers of children, etc.  It is an issue on which reasonable people differ.
 
The second wave of discontent with Ferrer's remarks on Diallo comes from people who say, "Whether he was right or not on the issue, it was foolish of him to speak about it because he alienated so many people."  There is a precedent for this concern.  In the 1988 campaign, Mayor Koch supported Senator Gore who, at the time, was regarded as the most conservative candidate.  His rivals were Governor Dukakis and Jesse Jackson.  Koch cited Jackson's gratuitous reference in February 1984 to New York City as "Hymietown" (which some believed to be an anti-Semitic slur — it is hard to see the word as mere geographic information for travelers).  Koch said: "Jews would have to be crazy to vote for Jesse Jackson." 
 
There were objections to Koch's remark.  Some probably felt that enlightened Jews should vote for Jackson since he was the most radical candidate in the race.  More people believed that, without regard to whether the statement was true, politicians should not relate public opinion about candidacies to ethnicity, especially when it deals with attitudes toward a candidate's remark based on race or religion. Others felt it was wrong to say anything that respectable people would object to, or that could call attention to race-based political choices.
 
Of course, the division of the electorate by age, income, gender and ethnicity is a well known fact, surveyed regularly by public opinion pollsters, some of whom are employed by candidates to get information as to how they are doing.  Nonetheless, in our pluralistic democracy, one pretends in public discourse that such differences do not exist, or if they do, they are the result of oppression.
 
Race and gender have always been factors in politics, a field which depends on millions of personal choices, on the cumulative basis of which candidates win or lose.  The success of women candidates for the judiciary in New York City is due to the fact that many voters, to whom the candidates are unknowns, vote for the name that strikes their fancy, or seems most like theirs.  Political leaders who choose candidates for local office give weight to the candidate's race and religion, in their effort to select the nominee most likely to be elected in that district.  With the decline of political bosses, and the rise of self-promoting candidates, less attention is paid to a balanced ticket, and the result can be substantial imbalance, which the voters may accept or reject.
 
From the 1940s to the 1960s, the major party slates in citywide elections generally consisted of an Irish, an Italian and a Jewish candidate, each from a different major borough (Staten Island being omitted because of its small population at the time).  The practice of balancing the ticket led to the selection of Vincent R. Impellitteri as the Democratic candidate for City Council President in 1945.  The mayoral candidate was William O'Dwyer (Brooklyn Irish), the comptroller was to be Lazarus Joseph (Bronx Jewish), which left the Council president's spot for an Italian from Manhattan.  A search of the Green Book, or a call to mafia figures, or both (depending on which story you believe) is said to have resulted in the selection of the unknown Impellitteri, who at the time was the secretary to a judge.  Impy later became the city's 101st Mayor, when O'Dwyer hastily resigned in 1950 to accept President Truman's appointment as Ambassador to Mexico, which also placed him beyond the reach of process servers. O'Dwyer remained in Mexico for some years after President Eisenhower replaced him as the American ambassador.
 
Ethnic preference was expressed in the early political slogan, "Vote your own."  It is now treated somewhat differently by the press, depending on whose preference is being weighed.  For example, in 1989, the overwhelming black vote for candidate Dinkins over Mayor Koch was said to have been motivated by racial pride. In 1993, Dinkins again carried the black vote, while the white majority that supported candidate Rudy Giuliani was said to be biased.  This was explained by the fact that there were many more Democrats than Republicans in New York City, which is true, and that therefore the only reason Democrats would desert their candidate and vote for a Republican would be racism.
 
This explanation ignores crime, Crown Heights, the Korean boycott, the schools crisis, the deficit which led to the layoffs of 50,000 city employees, and other events that occurred during the mayor's term.  Although some of these events were not Mayor Dinkins' fault, just as the fiscal crisis of 1974-75 could not be blamed entirely on Mayor Beame, the subsequent massive layoffs cost Mayor Beame in popularity (he came in third to Ed Koch and Mario Cuomo in the 1977 Democratic primary).

In fact, many votes are cast on the basis of racial or religious preference.  There are positive and negative racial feelings in all groups about other groups.  It is not a rational or noble way to choose leaders (look at the situation in Iraq today), but it is a remnant of the tribalism that exists at various levels of consciousness and unconsciousness in all of us.

---