Interview: Ross Barkan of the Village Voice and the Guardian

Politics in NYC is a complex world. Few report about it so well as Ross Barkan, columnist for the Village Voice and Guardian. Ross is that rare thing in political reporting these days -- a thoughtful, impartial, and honest voice. As NYC gears up for its own elections this fall, Ross was kind enough to give Mr NYC readers his insights about the state of New York politics and the future of this city. You can follow Ross Barkan on Twitter at https://twitter.com/RossBarkan.

Crime and affordability have been the Big Issues in previous NYC elections but this year doesn't seem to have one defining issue. What do you think will be the main issues in this fall's campaign?

Crime is so low right now, but I imagine Nicole Malliotakis, the Republican nominee, and Bo Dietl, the Trump-like independent, will try to make it an issue. To me, that's silly. There are actual problems facing this city. Housing is extremely unaffordable, which has fed our homelessness crisis. Our subway infrastructure is coming apart. Unfortunately, the city has so little say when it comes to transit--the MTA is state-run and effectively controlled by Governor Cuomo--but the mayoral candidates certainly have a right to debate fixes. I hope they do. Housing and transit should be at the forefront of the race. Will they actually be? We'll find out. I hope we stop talking about statues. 

During his first term, Mayor De Blasio was not overwhelming popular and yet he won big in the primary and is favored to win a second term. Does this show the power of "holding your base" in politics or because, despite what the polls show, New Yorkers think he's actually done a good job?

It's an interesting question. De Blasio's 2013 primary win was more dominating than people understand, and helps explain some of his arrogance. In a crowded field of big-time contenders--Christine Quinn initially dominated media coverage, followed by Anthony Weiner--de Blasio was able to hit 40 percent and avoid a runoff, something no one thought was possible before that race began. He won almost every assembly district in the city. He won every borough. He built a coalition of liberal whites, Latinos, and blacks that isn't seen often in city politics. As mayor, he has never had a sky-high approval rating (Bloomberg and Giuliani went north of 70%) or a disastrously low one (Bloomberg sat in the 30's at one point). He's not a major personality, he has an awful relationship with the media, and he doesn't inspire visceral devotion or loyalty. But he has a core following, particularly in nonwhite outer borough neighborhoods. He is the first mayor in two decades to explicitly make it his mission to care about people who are poor and disenfranchised. Does he do enough to help them? It's fair to say he can do much more, but he's tried. Is he too beholden to real estate developers? Sure. Did some of the corruption investigations, even if they didn't lead to indictments, say something about an administration that prioritizes big donor access? Yes. De Blasio also has serious accomplishments as mayor--the universal pre-K program in particular--which voters can respect. He's been blessed with a good economy and a low-crime environment. He's definitely someone who benefits from the way our politics are set up, where Democratic primaries are everything, because his core base of support is so far unshakable. I'm not convinced, however, he couldn't win an election overwhelmingly if turnout increased or we held (as we should) nonpartisan elections open to all voters.

What effect, if any, will the Trump presidency have on this election? Does a President Trump hurt the Republican candidate by motivating Democratic voters or does he actually help her by motivating Republican voters?

Donald Trump is not good for Republicans in New York City. There are a lot of Republicans with intriguing ideas who deserve to be heard, like J.C. Polanco, the Republican candidate for public advocate. But Trump is extremely unpopular in the city and is toxic for the Republican Party here. Malliotakis has a challenge--on one hand, she's worried about losing core Republican support by disavowing Trump because he does have many fans in her home borough, Staten Island. On the other hand, her chances of even coming close to winning are zero if she's successfully branded as a "Trump Republican." (In her defense, she backed Marco Rubio pretty strongly in the primary.) Malliotakis' cause is rather hopeless, truth be told. Joe Lhota got 24% against de Blasio in 2013. Malliotakis can improve on that margin. How much, though, is unclear. This is another argument for nonpartisan elections or a "jungle" primary, where candidates of all parties run together and the top 2 face off in November. Malliotakis, a real conservative on many issues, represents viewpoints that aren't held by a lot of people in the city. 

Assuming all the incumbents are re-elected, who will be the leading candidates for mayor in 2021?

2021 is so far away, and I've learned many times over not to make firm predictions about politics. But you do have a field, at least, that is already coalescing. Comptroller Scott Stringer, who hungers for the office like few others, will run. Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams has said he'll run. Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr. will probably run. Public Advocate Letitia James may run. You could see the next speaker of the City Council take a shot at it, or even outgoing Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito, if she's so inclined. There will probably be other Democrats. Maybe Congressman Hakeem Jeffries. Maybe someone we can't even imagine.

Finally, what do you think most of the media and public are missing or don't fully understand about this year's NYC election?

In terms of issues, I wish there was more focus on public housing. Were NYCHA a standalone city, it would be among the largest in America. In terms of the election, what is the public and media missing or doesn't understand? Maybe that 2017 is a return to normalcy for city politics. You had 20 years of Republican mayors, which meant competitive general elections and primaries where Democrats fought among themselves for the opportunity to take down the Republicans. NYC is a Democratic town and we'll probably look back at that 20 year period as an anomaly. You also had crises that drove Democratic incumbents from office (Abe Beame, David Dinkins.) We're in a period of relative stability. De Blasio, the incumbent, is on firm footing. I don't think it means a decline in civic life if you don't get a feisty 2017 primary and general election. Ed Koch glided through two Democratic primaries and the Republican Party was so dead n 1981 it gave him its ballot line. No one remembers Robert Wagner's first re-election. There's a reason for that. 

Thanks Ross!

Pete Hamill & the NYC Underwelt -- Viewpoints

Recently I interviewed (for the third time) the prominent NYC journalist Ross Barkan about the recent victories of the DSA in primaries. I've also blogged about my sadness at the death of legendary NYC journalist Pete Hamill, and also about the quixotic, hopelessness of nostalgia -- part of what I dubbed the NYC Underwelt -- a longing for a past that is gone forever.

So it was fascinating for me to see these threads joined up when I stumbled upon a great new article by Ross in GQ that's about Pete Hamill, who made NYC nostalgia a huge part of his trademark. Ross's article is interesting because, while he cleary admires Hamill's life and career, it points out that the kind of career Hamill had isn't really possible anymore (thanks to the Internet, the need for advanced degress, plus the high cost of living in NYC), and that nostalgia has its dangers -- revanchism, regression, the kind of "make great again" mentality that led to Trump. Quite often, in fact necessarily, it's tied to racism/sexism/anti-semitism/bigotry of all kinds, to an attitude of "that's when those people knew their place", an ugly and dehumanizing worldview (one that Hamill tried strongly to denounce but that, nonetheless, hovers above). Hamill himself wrote about his dislike of (then) contemporary culture like rap (let's faec it, black) music and tight clothes, etc. and he rhapsodized about "Lost New York" -- where the Giants still played at the Pole Grounds, the Dodgers still played at Ebbets Field, the subway cost a nickel, no one was afraid of getting mugged -- oh, and with a post-WWII economy that boomed decade after decade.

Ross takes issue with the idea of "Lost New York", saying there really is no such thing: "There is no Lost New York, not lost Country. There are places we inhabit, and those we hope to do the best with while we're here." He believe that making the present better is all we have, and I agree. He also speculates that his Millennial generation (one I'm just a lil' too old to count as a member of but identify with) will be less prone to Hamill-esque nostalgia: he believes that the last 20 years of 9/11, the Iraq War, the 2008 financial crises, the Trump presidency, and now COVID-19 (I'd also throw in the bizarre 2000 election into this litany of horrors) will render nostalgia for this time moot. 

To this I say ... perhaps. Sadly, most people of his or any generation isn't quite as thoughtful as ross.

Certainly the 21st century has been brutal for America, especially for a generation raised at the end of the 20th century. It was an era, in hindsight, of misplaced optimism -- the economy boomed relentlessly (thanks to lots and lots and lots of debt and crazy financial shenanigans), Bill Cosby was America's role model, Harvey Weinstein was producing great movies, and Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were wildly popular.

But here's the thing about nostalgia, about the unending journey that so many of us, especially New Yorkers, take into the underwelt -- we're hardwired for it. It's a reptillian part of the brain, of our psyche and soul, of human nature. We can't help it, it's instictual, reflexive, like swallowing. 

Hamill's younger days were a time when legal segregation reigned, either in law or in practice, and homosexuals lived in The Closet. There was McCarthyism, the JFK assasination, Vietnam, riots, Watergate, and stagflation. And yet ... people like Hamill remember it fondly. Even the most horrible war in human history lead to gauzy nostalgia movies like Saving Private Ryan and The Thin Red Line, turning the tragedy of what killed my great uncle into entertainment (hey, I bought tickets to both!). When Marty McFly travelled from a rundown, porno infested Hill Valley in 1985 to a sock-hoppy happy one in 1955, the idea of "this time sucks, it was so much better 30 years ago" was quite au courant. Now we have Stranger Things, set in the 1980s, that does the very same thing!

The past is always better than the present -- because it's a safe, predictable place to go. 

In the time when Ross and I were young, we had Reagonomics, Rodney King, Lorena Bobbit, NAFTA, OJ, Monica -- and people today are super-nostalgic for that time. There's literally a movie called Mid-90s. NYC in the 1970s, when the city was subtley named "Fear City", has gained cultural traction today.

See my point? No matter how horrible the past was in reality, the present always looks at it through rose-colored glasses. The rough edges get smoothed, the messiness of the past is neatly re-packaged in books, documentaries, movies, TV shows, and podcasts, with narratives giving it a logic it didn't possess at the time. NYC today is a gentrified nightmare for a lot of people today, the same people who deplored the city thirty, forty-plus years ago when they thought it was falling apart. 

So I agree with Ross that we should cast Hamill-eque nostalgia aside and do our best the make the present better -- that we should not get trapped in the underwelt. But nostalgia, like racism and sexism and bad taste, will forever exist in some form. Again, it's just a part of who we are.

UPDATE: Comment from Ross Barkan on August 18, 2020: "I enjoyed the post and agree with the sentiments. Thank you for sending it to me. The Hamill legacy is a complicated one and deeply tied to NY."

Interview: Ross Barkan, State Senate Candidate for District 22

Well, this is interesting. 

Back in September, I interviewed political reporter Ross Barkan for this blog. He's a well-respected scribe on New York City and State politics, and he gave Mr NYC some great insights about the upcoming mayor's race. His interview has quickly become a popular and widely-read post. 

Little did I know but apparently Ross had something in the works and now it's official: he's throwing off his reporter's mantle and running for the NY State Senate. He's vying for the Democratic nomination to challenge Republican State Senator Marty Golden in 2018. According to Barkan, he plans to focus on the issues of "Single-payer [healthcare], transit, fixing Albany, and a lot of other things."

Ross is certainly a smart and courageous person. I just hope he knows what he's in for. Politics is brutal. I mean brutal. Remember the famous Game of Thrones line? "You win -- or die." Well, in 21st century American politics, maybe you don't literally die, it's still really, really tough. Ever the gentleman, Ross was kind enough to give Mr NYC another interview -- this time as a candidate:

Lots of aspiring politicians talk about the "sacrifice" of running for office but, let's face it, for most, it's a business, a career plan, and no sacrifice at all. But you're a successful, talented journalist who doesn't need to do this. Why?

I felt motivated to do it because I’ve been repeatedly disappointed by the political class. There are good people in politics and some very talented individuals, don’t get me wrong, and I don’t think the pols of yesteryear (with few exceptions) were particularly impressive. But we’re facing several crises here in Brooklyn and across the state and I saw that few were standing up to offer solutions or call out the bad actors who’ve screwed us. In the past, I had mused privately about running for office, and got serious about it a few months ago. When I announced this campaign, I said to myself I wanted to run a race on the values I care about, like Medicare for All, fixing our failing transit system, and cleaning up corruption. I want to run a campaign I would be proud of. In my corner of Southwest Brooklyn, a retrograde Republican state senator named Marty Golden represents me. He’s a nice enough guy and my grudge against him isn’t personal—it’s grounded in policy. He doesn’t care about public transportation or a woman’s right to choose or the discrimination faced by the Arab-American community. It’s time for him to go. And I plan to chase him out. On a personal level, this was a good time to run a campaign. I’m young enough. I don’t have children. In a decade from now, I probably won’t have this kind of time. I didn’t want to look back with any regrets.

Politics is ugly for a reason: it's the battle for power. You're trying to take power away from people who already have it or who think they deserve it more. Are you ready for people saying hateful things about you in the media, investigating your life, perhaps attacking your family, perhaps having people following you around recording you, all sorts of nightmarish stuff. Are you ready for the onslaught? (You realize that the Brooklyn Democratic machine might have other ideas of who should go up against Marty Golden and, if you win the primary, the GOP machine is going to fight like hell for a State Senate seat that pads their tiny, basically non-existent majority)?

Politics is a very rough business. I know it well. Am I ready? I hope. I’ve done my fair share of digging on other people and now I expect people out there to return the favor. I’m not naïve about the process. It will be a tough but exhilarating time, and I think ultimately it will be worth it. Not enough people take risks in politics. They hew to the conventional wisdom, play it safe, slink into the shadows. That’s not really my way. I intend to speak my mind. Maybe I’ll make some people uncomfortable. More often than not, though, I’ve found people don’t want to hear bullshit. Let the GOP cash machine come after me. I’ll have the truth on my side.

You said on Twitter that you'll never join the IDC. That's good to hear! Is there anything more you want to add about that?

The IDC needs to go. In an ideal world, the conference would be destroyed, never to return. All members of the IDC would lose and go home. Of course, that will be hard to achieve. Jeff Klein sits on millions of dollars and is a known quantity in his district. Diane Savino is good at constituent work. Defeating all eight is going to be very challenging. Do I hope it happens? Yes. I don’t want a scenario where I have to cast a vote for co-leader Klein. I really don’t. I will never vote for him. What galls me most about the IDC is the deception. To pose as progressives and literally keep conservatives in power. It’s disingenuous and wrong and I’m glad people are speaking up and fighting back.

Any more thoughts or things we should know about your State Senate run?

I said somewhere I am going to be unapologetically myself, no matter what. I won’t morph into an android politician. I won’t be Jon Ossoff. Win or lose, I will battle on the issues and values that matter most to me and my supporters.

Sounds good. I wish Ross luck. People are always complaining that good people don't run for office so here's a chance for the people in Brooklyn. It'll be interesting. If you want to know more about his campaign, you can go to his website here. 

Interview: Ross Barkan on the Future of the DSA in NYC & Beyond

In a time where everything feels like it’s been upended, the politics of NYC have certainly not been immune. This past June there were primaries for the fall state and federal elections. Finally, after more than a month of absentee ballots being counted, it turns out that four long-serving members of the State Assembly were defeated by candidates who are part of the DSA – the Democratic Socialists of America.

The DSA came to prominence in 2018 where it’s (now) most famous member, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, upset a longtime member of Congress (and former party boss). Although the DSA did not claim any new Congressional victories in NYC this year, its four State Assembly seat victories shows that the DSA strength is more grassroots, more widespread, in NYC than ever before. And next year there will be elections for the city’s municipal offices, and the DSA is certain to play a role in those as well.

So is socialism the future of NYC? Is this a nascent moment, the beginning of a new-leftist era in this city – or is it a momentary reaction to the Trump/COVID-19 era we are in? Only time will tell, of course, but … “something’s happening here,” something in the political water of NYC is brewing, and it’s something certainly to watch in the future.

Few people understand politics in NYC better than journalist/activist/candidate/previous Mr NYC interviewee Ross Barkan. He was kind enough to give Mr NYC yet another interview, this time on the impact of the DSA on NYC politics (both on the Democratic party and in general), its perils and promises for public policy and politics, and what we can expect from the DSA going forward, both in NYC and beyond.

Tell us briefly about who and what the DSA is -- what are their main goals in terms of politics and policy?

DSA is a political organization founded by Michael Harrington, a prominent socialist writer and political activist, in 1982. Their main goal, ultimately, is to make America as democratically socialist as possible: to advance socialist policy and elect more open socialists to office. Beyond electoral work, they do a lot of organizing campaigns around specific policy aims. DSA's growth exploded after the 2016 election. They now have more than 60,000 members nationwide. They differ from older socialist movements in that they advocate for running socialists on the Democratic Party line and not forming third party movements. Socialist parties of a century ago always ran on their own ballot line.

How many DSA candidates won Democratic primaries last week and, more importantly, how did they do it?

In New York City, four state legislative candidates endorsed by DSA won, along with incumbents Julia Salazar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. They won with their large number of volunteers, improved fundraising capacity, and strong use of digital communications. Even with the pandemic, they had a strong GOTV operation through phonebanking and digital contact. Demographic change played a role in some races. Their messaging was potent as well.

How many of these candidates, once they take office, will realistically be able to influence policy in NY State? Do you think they'll play an important, productive role in next year's legislative sessions or will they essentially be agitators, a Tea Party of the Left?

They'll play a role by mainstreaming their issues and pushing colleagues left. DSA's aim should truthfully be to become the Tea Party of the left, because the Tea Party was very influential in tugging the Republican Party to the right. If DSA can do the same to the Democratic Party - a much taller order - socialism will be that much closer to winning, which could mean universal healthcare and a right to housing.

What does the recent success of the DSA tell us about the power of the Democratic machines in NYC? Are the machines becoming more irrelevant? 

The machines are increasingly irrelevant when it comes to getting out the vote for their chosen candidates. If organized labor chooses to help a machine candidate, that's a boost, but otherwise the Democratic Party organizations have little to offer. Their clubs are diminished and they don't have much to spend from their campaign coffers. 

How much, in your opinion, does the success of the DSA have to do with long-term generational and demographic changes in NYC -- or is it an anti-Trump, "mad-as-hell"-like zeitgest that might abate after he leaves office?

That's helped spur their growth but they are built for the long haul now because the membership has grown. A lot more young people are plugged into DSA and they'll keep momentum going after Trump.

Let's imagine a beautiful world a year or two from now - no more Trump, no more COVID-19, a much-improved economy, etc. Does the presence of avowed socialists in the Democratic party then become a problem for the party, does it scare off more moderate voters both in NYC and the rest of the state and country -- or is it the beginning of a new movement? What do you think the political impact of DSA elected officials could have in a post-Trump NYC and America?

The impact will be in the Democratic Party mainstreaming socialist policy, which is already happening. Mainstream Democrats like Kamala Harris have expressed support for Medicare for All, which is thanks to Bernie Sanders, who helped fuel the DSA boom in the first place. I don't know if voters will be scared off or not. DSA is already very influential in New York and other large cities, as well as select rural areas. This will probably continue.

Do you have any more thoughts about the DSA, their recent electoral success, and the future of NYC politics?

DSA needs to figure out how to engage working class and poor people more and be less of an organization of educated professionals. But they are now clearly a force to be reckoned with.

Thanks Ross!

Mr NYC Ahead of His Time

In 2017 I interviewed the journalist Ross Barkan when he kicked off his campaign for State Senate in Brooklyn. He made the bold decision to stop just commenting on politics and instead jump into the fray, slap down his credentials, and put himself before the electorate, ready to serve.

He lost -- and returned to journalism.

But Ross' campaign turned out to be an acorn from which a great oak grew. Ross' campaign manager in that race was ... drumroll ... Zohran Mamdani.

Zohran, as we know, would go on to be elected to the New York State Assembly from Astoria, Queens in 2020 and is now the Mayor-elect of New York City. 

Mind-boggling. 

Ross has written a wonderful column about his relationship with Zohran during the 2017-2018 campaign and afterwards. It is, as he notes, head-snapping to have known someone when he was an anonymous staffer and is now a world-famous, history-making political figure. 

I can only imagine.

But it is amazing to realize that, when I interviewed Ross back in 2017 (twice actually and later on in 2020), he was nurturing a one-in-a-million political talent who would go on not only to make NYC and American history but vanquish a fifty-year old political dynasty. 

And to think, to ponder, to be amazed by the fact that there is a semi-direct link from a post on this 'umble blog covering a mere State Senate race to, less than a decade later, worldwide coverage of a history-in-the-making election ... curious the fates are.

History has its eyes on us. And to prove, yet again, Mr NYC is ahead of his time!

Mr NYC Ahead of His Time

The 2025 NYC Democratic Mayoral primary will end on June 24th and it will go down in history as one of the most befuddling in our fair city. The leading candidates are a former NY State governor (Andrew Cuomo) who resigned in disgrace four years ago and a Muslim Socialist Assemblyman (Zohran Mamdani). 

Once upon a time -- let's say, ten years ago -- the idea that either person could win a primary and maybe get elected mayor seemed unthinkable. Yet here we are. Of course once upon a time we never imagined that a bankrupt conman convicted felon and adjudicated rapist who was twice impeached and tried to violently destroy democracy could be elected -- and re-elected -- President. Yet here we are. 

Dark times. Weird times. Take your pick.

But staying closer to home, one really has to wonder how Cuomo and Mandami became the mayoral frontrunners. This article posits that it's due to the withering of the political clubs in NYC. Tammany Hall is long gone, and the remaining clubs no longer have the power to "deliver" votes that carry mayors to victory. Instead, individualized campaigns took over from the clubs, public financing meant that clubs couldn't throw around money in quite the same way. Clubs can canvas and help turn out voters but they don't have the patronage power of jobs that they used to, they don't have the neighborhood-to-neighborhood power that they used to. And obviously television and social media and outright fame can deliver vastly more voters than a party boss.  

The article also revives the memory of a mayor that I blogged about in 2007: Vincent Impelliteri (called Impy) who was handpicked by Tammany Hall to run for City Council President in 1945 because he was an Italian from Manhattan ;they needed to balance the citywide slate (Mayor, William O'Dwyer; Comptroller, Lazarus Joseph; City Council, Impelliteri) with an Irishman, a Jew, and an Italian. When O'Dywer resigned in 1950 Impy became mayor. This is held up as an example of how clubs, the political "machines", made mayors back then.

But one thing the article gets somewhat wrong is that while the political clubs and machines can't "make mayors" these days, they can still make members of the city council, State Assembly and State Senate. No, they can't make another Impy -- or Robert Wagner or (going even farther back) Jimmy Walker, but the clubs/machines still wield a lot of power in NYC under the radar. 

So here we are, less than a week before the primary, and the most likely winners are a guy running on huge name-recognition and another on social media savvy. 

Tammany Hall could never have imagined that.

If you want to know more about where Zohran came from, read this article by three-time Mr NYC interviewee Ross Barkan about Zohran when Ross ran for State Senate in 2018 and Zohran worked for him. It's interesting to see where this possibly transformative political figure came from and who he is.

And remember, I was blogging about all of these people -- Cuomo, Zohran, Ross, even  Impy! -- several YEARS before this current moment. 

And yet again Mr NYC is ahead of his time while the rest of NYC is catching up!

Carpe Diem NYC

Great must-read article by NYC reporter, and past Mr NYC interviewee, Ross Barkan about the policies the candidates for mayor are proposing vs. the needs of the city.

They are proposing a variety of different policies like guarenteed income, a city-wide health insurance program, and various housing proposals. But none of them are particularly sweeping and grand. For many, it's just about getting NYC back to some semblance of 2019 normality, not a 2022 bright shiny future. 

And a grand and sweeping new vision is what this city needs right now -- the next mayor needs to seize the day, seize the moment, carpe diem etc. so that NYC can remain a great and sustainable city. 

Ross brilliantly compares and contrasts the big social and infrustructure policy achievements of the 1930s to 1960s with the infrastructure and social welfare demands on the city today, noting two big things: as great as social welfare and building policies of that era were, they were warped and unevenly distributed by racism. At the same time, so much of the city's fate is in the hands of the state and federal government. Back then, NYC had a willing partner in Albany and DC. These days, it's a much more complex, fraught, and unpredictable relationship.

Ross makes the point, and it's both extremely important and obvious, that housing is THE issue for the next mayor. He even proposes some solutions like, for example, the city buying out broke and overleveraged landlords. None of the candidates for mayor has a housing vision that's truly bold and innovative. And, in so many ways, everything else is secondary -- if you literally can't live in NYC, nothing else matters.

I hope that all of the candidates for mayor read this article and start thinking hard about what kind of mayor they want to be -- and what kind of city they really want NYC to be. 

Mr NYC Ahead of His Time

Okay, doing two Mr NYC Ahead of His Time(s) in under a week may be a little shameless but I can't help it -- I really am.

See, when it comes to people and places and things in NYC, I always feel like I saw them first, got them first, experienced them first -- I was, in a way, prophetic.

Recently two things reminded me of that, and they couldn't be more different.

First, a report on CBS Sunday Morning about the Professional Children's School in Manhattan. I went there for middle school, during my dancing days, over 30 years ago. It was weird seeing what the school has evolved into today -- some things were familiar, some things very different. Plus ca change ... and so forth.

Second, our friend Ross Barkan has popped up again, this time giving a big interview about the mayor's race to Tara Palmeri, one these ex-network anchors who now does her own YouTube show. You should watch it since both Tara and Ross are very smart. 

Specifically, Ross talks about whether or not this election will mark the end of the Cuomo dynasty that has had great power in this city and state for almost 50th year. Are the Cuomos going the way of the Bushes, the Kennedys, the Romanovs and the Habsburgs? Tomorrow will tell us. 

 

Eric Adams: The Secrets of His Success

The vision-less, incompetent mayoralty of Eric Adams is now getting more and more attention from what some might call the "elite" media -- specifically, The New Yorker, whose big new article on him, "Eric Adams' Administration of Bluster", goes into a mayoralty that's long on narcissism, short on accomplishment. The New York Times has run a few articles on his empty yet braggadocious tenure -- as well as the fact that, while many want to see him defeated for reelection in 2025, who the Adams-slayer might be remains frustratingly unclear. 

And that, in fact, has been the secret to Adams' mayoral success thus far -- a total lack of credible challengers, a strong alternative to him.

Even though he almost lost the 2021 Democratic mayoral primary, Adams' main challengers were the smart but politically inexperienced Kathryn Garcia, the "entrepreneur"/former presidential candidate/con-man Andrew Yang, and others who were either unknown or unimpressive. In the general election, his Republican opponent was Curtis Sliwa who was, and is, in short, insane. The NYC political reporter -- and three-time Mr NYC interviewee -- Ross Barkan asks in one of his latest articles, "How did New York get Eric Adams?" and then answers it in the same vein -- Adams was the best of a very bad bunch, the strongest in a very weak field; in short, he became mayor almost by default, thanks to a process of elimination where he was viewed as the "least-worst" option.

Unlike the big-time media, this blog and Ross have been covering the oddness and misgovernance of Eric Adams ever since he took office. This is yet another example of how Mr NYC has been "ahead of his time."

And, looking ahead, it's important to remember one big thing: political survival comes down to, at the end of the day, who supports you. Political survival, sadly, is not about how good a job politicians are doing, not about whether or not they're delivering good policies or tangible benefits for the public, but whether or not they have the support for the powerful forces that can keep them in office. Besides weak or non-existent political opposition, Adams has had and retains strong support among black and Hispanic voters, the business community, Jewish voters, police and the tabloid press. These are the same constituencies (saving the black and Hispanic communities) who strongly supported Koch, Giuliani and Bloomberg back in the day, and who violently opposed Dinkins and DeBlasio -- and it's why those former three mayors remained popular despite their plutocratic and corrupt mayoralties and the latter two became hated.

Eric Adams is mayor -- and may very well continue as mayor until January 1st, 2030 -- since he has probably the most powerful aforementioned group of supporters that any mayor has ever had, he has (for now) no potent opposition, the daily horror show and threat that Donald Trump poses continues to overwhelm and distract the public from Adams's failings, plus the sharp decline in local reporting has reduced the scrutiny that NYC mayors have gotten in the past. 

Adams doesn't really have any secret to his political success, he's no genius or playing some great game, some kind of multi-dimensional chess -- he's just been lucky (so far). He's been luckier than his opponents who are either dumber or weaker or crazier than he is; and if, in 2025 and beyond, his luck holds and his opponents remain imponent and he doesn't end up getting indicted (and it wouldn't shock me if he is), Adams may be able to retire from politics on January 1st, 2030 with NYC thinking he was a successful mayor.    

It will be classic case of failing upwards. 

Mayor-Elect Adams

In 2013 and 2017, I did election night live blogs of the results as they came in. This year events ensued (good ones!) that prevented it. However, the big news is that Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams won the mayoralty and will replace Mayor De Blasio on January 1st, 2022. Above is his victory speech.

As for the outgoing mayor, what's his legacy? Previous Mr NYC multi-interviewee Ross Barkan has a smart, comphrensive look at what Bill DeBlasio did and didn't do as mayor -- and what was his "fault" and what was beyond his control.

NYC moves ever onwards.

Crises? What Crises?

Public service is generally defined as serving in a job, often in government, where your work is to better the lives of the general public. That's generally how public service has been understood throughout American history.

Elected officials, politicians, are two things at once: public servants but also celebrities of a sort -- they need to have a certain charisma, "star power", magnetism of some sort that gets lots and lots of people to vote for them (at least get more votes than their opponents) and often has little to do with their qualifications or competence for the actual work of the job.

Something interesting has happened in last decade or two -- now we have politicians who clearly have no interest in serving the public, who don't care about doing the actual job. They just want to be a celebrity. 

Sarah Palin and then Trump are classic examples. But we have one big one closer to home.

Mayor Eric Adams is the very model of a modern politician -- he doesn't actually care about governing, he's not much interested in policy. He likes to hang out at nightclubs and rant about crime but doesn't seem have any vision, any policies, any ideas about helping the general public.

There are twin crises in NYC today that Mayor Adams seems wholly indifferent to:

1. The fact that, in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, generations of Hasidic children are not receiving a proper education or being prepared for adult life, all of which is being partially subsidized by taxpayers. The New York Times published a bombshell investigation about how a huge number of Hasidic children are essentially living in a mini-North Korea. Adams response? It's no big deal. To be fair, this has been a years-long, bipartisan disgrace but this has been fully exposed on Adams watch -- and his response is to do nothing.

2. The odious thing about the conservative political movement is to say that government doesn't work and then, when they get control of the government, make sure it doesn't. There is currently a crises in the staffing of the municipal government because the salaries are too low, there are no work-from-home options, and attrition since COVID began has been awful. Again, Adams doesn't see a problem with this and, in fact, has contributed to the problem -- he wants the city government to lowball salaries to applicants for city jobs and has been totally inflexible on them working from home. 

Ross Barkan, a three-time Mr NYC interviewee, has a great new article about how Mayor Adams doesn't see this as a crises because he doesn't see governing as a priority. The depressing thing is that Adams is not an outlier, not the exception to the rule: he is the rule, he's the standard of today's politician who do nothing policy-wise, claim to have no responsibility for anything, and preen for cameras and social media feeds. 

So if you wonder why problems in today's city, today's country, today's society remain unresolved, this is why.

The Mayor's Endgame

I'm not going to blog about Eric Adams anymore until something definitive happens -- namely, that he ceases to be mayor.

So this will be my last post on the subject until then.

That said, you shoud read this article by the political journalist & three-time Mr NYC-interviewee Ross Barkan about "The Fall of Eric Adams" -- and how we got here. As always, he summarizes the whole thing well.