I might be forgiven for claiming that I possess a crystal ball. I don't -- but I certainly have, over the years, written about things long before the mainstream media or others have.
That's why I created an entire section of this blog called Mr NYC Ahead of His Time with examples of my psychic abilities.
Two blog posts that I did were about the borough of Queens and how it's essentially the "swing" borough in NYC politics -- the borough where mayors are made, the true political pulse of the city. (I referred to Queens as the "Ohio" of NYC but these days it's more like the "Wisconsin.") Also, I blogged about the political dynasties in this city, families that have posessed power in NYC for generations.
Well, whatyaknow, there was recently a big article that breaks down exactly how Queens breaksdown politically and how volatile it is, and the role that political dynasties play in NYC politics.
Like ... wow! I was writing about this stuff LONG before the hotshot political reporters in this town did. I don't claim to be brilliant but yours truly sure does have a habit of noticing and writing about things before others, a kind of "sixth sense" about NYC.
I plan to continue doing this for a long time to come!
If you watched the great Netflix show The Crown, about the late British Queen Elizabeth II, it was all about how a country's monarchy survives in a world where most countries are now republics.
For most of human history, most of the world lived under monarchies -- but the last hundred-plus years has seen a reversal with monarchies falling and republics surging (see the brilliant 1974 series Fall of Eagles for more about why this happened).
As a study of history and politics, I'm fascinated by the diference between monarchies and republics. In short, a monarchy is a country ruled by one person and his or her family while a republic is a country ruled by the people. Most revolutions throughout history have been of countries overthrowing their monarchies and becoming republics -- although sometimes, like in Ancient Rome or 19th century France, it goes the other way (more than once).
Today, of course, these things are much more complicated.
In the United Kingdom and some other counties, they have the concept of constitutional monarchies where the people elect a government but the monarch remains a powerless national figurehead. In some supposed republics, however, like North Korea or Russia, there is supposed rule by the people but really these countries are ruled by strongmen and their families -- these pseudo-republics being more authoritarian and monarchical than any real monarchy.
But what exists in both monarchies and republics are dynasties -- families that build wealth and power and then exercise it over the people.
In America, a republic, we have and have had many dynasties: the Adamses, Harrisons, Roosevelts, Kennedies, Tafts, Clintons and Bushes all reaching not only the presidency but other high offices (like Congressional and Senate seats plus Governorships). First they dominate their political parties, then their states, then the country.
Closer to home, we've had multiple New York Governors named Roosevelt and Cuomo (although, in NYC, we've had never had mayors of the same family). However, in super-local politics, we've had many dynasties in the state legislature and various city offices: the Boylans in Brooklyn, the Vallones in Queens, the Diazes in the Bronx, the Molinari's in Staten Island, and others.
Dynasties in NYC politics are as powerful as ever.
That's why I was interested to read about how the former Harlem Assemblyman Keith Wright's son Jordan is running for his old seat, seeking to continue a family's power in Harlem and state government. This is how dynasties are made.
Even though NYC is a democracy existing under the framework of state and federal law, it has its own charter divvying up power between the mayor and city council as well as the borough presidents, Comptroller and Public Advocate. And even though this city has multiple dynasties, NYC is not a some kind of 16-century Medici-like Italian city-state under dictatorial rule of one person or family. However, Mayor Adams has just appointed a charter commission charter commission to try to rein in the council's power and increase the mayor's (i.e. his) power. It's a cynical move to become less accountable (where else have we seen this?).
What's interesting to me about the perennial existance of dynasties in democracies, and of power-grabbing politicians like Adams (and other aspiring American tyrants who shall not be named), is that the concept of rule by the people with divided, limited powers, is and forever shall be a boulder being shoved up hill.
By their very nature, people are greedy and family-oriented, and they want to accumulate as much wealth and power as possible for themselves and, when they age or die out, want their families to retain it. That's why great dynasties like the Plantagenets in England or the Habsburgs in Austria or the Romanovs in Russia held power for centuries and were only overthrown through violence and war.
It doesn't matter what high ideals we may claim to have, whether we've had revolutions to get rids of monarches and establish republican rule -- the hunger for power by people and their families remains and overwhelms.
We Americans have a love-hate relationship with powerful families. We hate nepotism and disdain the idea of electing people to office just because they come from a famous family. At the same time, a powerful family is like a brand, a comforting pre-sold item that we feel safe buying over and over again -- and that's why political dynasties emerge.
The last few decades have seen the rise of several political dynasties. The Clintons, the Bushes and the Kennedys are currently the most famous dynasties in American politics. Then there are regional dynasties like the Tafts of Ohio or the Carnahans of Missouri.
Here in New York we haven't really had a major political dynasty since the Roosevelts. However, this year will probably cement the Cuomos as New York's newest political dynasty. Mario Cuomo, of course, was governor for twelve years from 1983-1995. Before that he was the New York Secretary of State and Lieutenant Governor, spending 20 years in high office in the state government. In 2006, his son Andrew was elected Attorney General and now is the odd-on favorite to become governor. That will mean Cuomopereandfils will have racked up almost thirty years of service to this state and, if Andrew is a successful governor and serves as long as his dad, it will push forty.
So who are the Cuomos? What is this new dynasty all about? Some recent articles about this family sheds some light and you can read them here and here. You can also read about why it's easier for sons to continue family dynasties than women -- something that Caroline Kennedy can certainly attest to.
