Home Page > Editorial and Op-Ed
Homework for the Once and Future Kings
Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:10:00
Last year, Americans passed on the chance to have a rehash of 1990s-era politicians and politics. A strong majority of the voters, New Yorkers included, were apparently ready to pick a president for reasons few would have actually been able to articulate beyond vague nods at “change.”
Next year, it seems, New Yorkers will get their own chance, with a statewide ballot that could feature the returns of Rudy Giuliani, George Pataki, Rick Lazio and maybe even Eliot Spitzer. Change at home is not something New Yorkers believe in at home.
Of course, no one would argue that Chuck Schumer should be discouraged from running just because he was on the 1998 ballot. And there is, obviously, a governmental value to experience and a political value to name recognition, both of which make the thinking driving these resurrections totally reasonable. But there is also a clear downside: by keeping the top spots reserved for the giants of the past, they leave the giants of the future little room to grow.
There is more to this than simply standing aside for the sake of a younger generation’s ambition. The world is changing very quickly, and politics is realigning itself on the ground with even greater speed, as the events of the 2008 presidential election proved. Amid this transitional moment, passing the torch to new leaders could be more important than ever, both to bring in new ideas and to demonstrate to the voters that they welcome new involvement in the political process.
Revival candidacies are not necessarily a bad thing. Age and experience often breed wisdom, and any or all of the rumored returns might help foster a strength of leadership that has been sorely lacking in this state.
Alternatively, they could serve to re-immerse us in the old arguments that consumed the years when the state should have been focused on preempting the various crises in which New York now finds itself. At a time when the budget bloat threatens to drown us all, when MTA mismanagement threatens the long-term viability of the system and legislative inertia threatens to make “state government” an oxymoron, this may not be the time to return to the personalities and fights of the past.
Especially if they run, the would-be returning champions have an obligation not just to develop fresh rationales, but to address why state politics remains stuck on names from the past. Our celebrity-obsessed culture is one reason, certainly, but so is a system that presents huge financial hurdles—both in the massive fundraising demands and low salaries that keep many good people from seeking office—and rewards inertia. What better way to show that their new candidacies will be a break from the past than for these revived politicians to stand up for real campaign finance reform, competitive pay rates, term limits and changes in the law that would foster participation, like easing ballot access?
That would be strength. That would be dynamism. That would be a way for the leaders of the past to help guide New York to a better future.
Next year, it seems, New Yorkers will get their own chance, with a statewide ballot that could feature the returns of Rudy Giuliani, George Pataki, Rick Lazio and maybe even Eliot Spitzer. Change at home is not something New Yorkers believe in at home.
Of course, no one would argue that Chuck Schumer should be discouraged from running just because he was on the 1998 ballot. And there is, obviously, a governmental value to experience and a political value to name recognition, both of which make the thinking driving these resurrections totally reasonable. But there is also a clear downside: by keeping the top spots reserved for the giants of the past, they leave the giants of the future little room to grow.
There is more to this than simply standing aside for the sake of a younger generation’s ambition. The world is changing very quickly, and politics is realigning itself on the ground with even greater speed, as the events of the 2008 presidential election proved. Amid this transitional moment, passing the torch to new leaders could be more important than ever, both to bring in new ideas and to demonstrate to the voters that they welcome new involvement in the political process.
Revival candidacies are not necessarily a bad thing. Age and experience often breed wisdom, and any or all of the rumored returns might help foster a strength of leadership that has been sorely lacking in this state.
Alternatively, they could serve to re-immerse us in the old arguments that consumed the years when the state should have been focused on preempting the various crises in which New York now finds itself. At a time when the budget bloat threatens to drown us all, when MTA mismanagement threatens the long-term viability of the system and legislative inertia threatens to make “state government” an oxymoron, this may not be the time to return to the personalities and fights of the past.
Especially if they run, the would-be returning champions have an obligation not just to develop fresh rationales, but to address why state politics remains stuck on names from the past. Our celebrity-obsessed culture is one reason, certainly, but so is a system that presents huge financial hurdles—both in the massive fundraising demands and low salaries that keep many good people from seeking office—and rewards inertia. What better way to show that their new candidacies will be a break from the past than for these revived politicians to stand up for real campaign finance reform, competitive pay rates, term limits and changes in the law that would foster participation, like easing ballot access?
That would be strength. That would be dynamism. That would be a way for the leaders of the past to help guide New York to a better future.
