By Henry J. Stern
September 29, 2005
We are twenty-five days away from an election, but one would
hardly know that in New York State. That is because, at this time,
the outcome of the election is considered assured.
This unusual condition has both positive and negative aspects. The good
news is that no candidate is forced to make promises which may win votes
but are financially irresponsible. Governor Pataki's use of a one-shot
asset to make a billion dollar commitment to hospital union leader Dennis
Rivera in 2002 substantially increased the cost of health care in New York,
much of which is paid by the state. In exchange, the union endorsed Pataki
for re-election to a third term, which sealed the fate of Democrat Carl McCall..
The projected landslide, (72 per cent for Spitzer, 2l per cent for Faso,
according to the September 18 Siena poll), also spares us the negative campaigning
now taking place in the New Jersey Senate race, which is considered close.
It is the custom in politics to go negative only when it will affect the result.
A disadvantage of a one-sided race is that the putative winner has no reason
to promise to do anything good, and when the status quo is as dismal as it
is in state government, no change will be a disappointing result. Since
we only seem to elect a new governor every twelve years (Cuomo in 1982 and
Pataki in 1994), a turnover should be an occasion for significant change for
the better.
To start with the Federal office at stake, Senator Clinton's re-election
is inevitable. Any prospect of a respectable contest was doomed when
Governor Pataki unexpectedly torpedoed the candidacy of lawyer Edward F. Cox,
who could have been a contender. The resulting debacle of Jeanine Pirro's
apparently impromptu Senate declaration not only helped Clinton, but injured
Ms. Pirro's campaign for Attorney General, a race for which she is clearly
qualified.
The only issue in the Senate race is whether Senator Clinton will surpass
the 71 per cent of the vote that Senator Schumer won in his re-election campaign
in 2004. The Republican Senatorial nominee, a former mayor of Yonkers,
a city just north of Riverdale, is chiefly known for his opponent’s negative
commercials in the Republican primary. Even the Hillary-haters, who
raised 40 million dollars to defeat her six years ago, are saving their cash
for the Presidential race. She is doing the same thing with the $35,424,693
that she is reported by
opensecrets.org
to have raised in 2006 alone.
The 'race' for Governor appears to be something between a cakewalk and a
triumphal procession. The Siena College poll on September 20 reported
72 per cent for Eliot Spitzer and 21 per cent for John Faso. That is
a margin of 51 per cent, which will be difficult to overcome in 25 days.
The process of anointment of the projected winner began yesterday with a
lengthy biography in the New York Times. In a complimentary article by
Danny
Hakim, starting on page A1 and jumping to the entire page B7, Hakim details
the rise of the State Attorney General. You can link to it for seven
days, but then it goes off-line except to TimesSelect subscribers. If you
want to read it but don't have the time this week, you better print it out
now.
It is clear from the article that, qualified as he is, Mr. Spitzer's meteoric
rise (although meteors usually fall) would not have been possible without
the enormous wealth earned by his father, Bernard, in real estate and development.
The same situation applies to Mayor Bloomberg, except that he earned the money
himself. If he had not run, we would most likely have had Fernando Ferrer
as Mayor, and people can judge for themselves whether that result would have
been preferable.
Family money also played an indispensable role in the rise of John F. Kennedy,
elected to the House in 1946, the Senate in 1952, and the Presidency in 1960.
As in the Spitzer cases, it was the father who made the fortune. Without
JFK, Richard Nixon might have been President eight years sooner, and Henry
Cabot Lodge would have continued to represent Massachusetts in the Senate
until he was elected Vice President in 1960. (He was Nixon's running mate
in 1960.)
Franklin D. Roosevelt was able to attend Harvard College and Columbia Law
School, and then provide for five children (a sixth, the first FDR, Jr., lived
just eight months in 1909), with the aid of his family. His house was
bought by his mother as a wedding gift; she lived next door. The family's
social position in New York and relationship to the Oyster Bay Roosevelts
was also helpful, it is why FDR was the Democratic vice presidential nominee
in 1920.
So far as we know, the issue of affluence was not raised against General
George Washington when the Electoral College, then chosen by state legislatures,
selected him unanimously in 1789. Washington was a wealthy landowner
in Virginia, and also owned more than
three
hundred slaves. He was the only one of the founding fathers to emancipate
all of them, which he did through his will, effective on the death of his
wife, Martha. She passed away in May 1802, a scant twenty-six months
after her husband. In contrast almost all of Thomas Jefferson’s 187
slaves were sold after his death to pay his death to pay his substantial debts.
Jefferson did, however, free the six children of
Sally
Hemings.,
. ( It is our intention to write Monday on the campaign and Tuesday on the
relationship between Eliot Spitzer and Sheldon Silver and how it will impact
state government in 2007.)
#325 10.13.06 944wds