In the 2010 New York State gubernatorial election, Democratic candidate Andrew Cuomo won over 60% of the vote in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans almost 2 to 1. That this happened in an election year which saw massive gains for the Republican Party was not in itself terribly surprising; after all, New York has reliably voted for the Democrats in Presidential elections for decades and the state Assembly has been controlled by the Democratic Party for over 35 years in a row.
Governor Cuomo's father, Mario, was also a Democratic governor of New York in the 1980s and early 1990s. Mario Cuomo was an outspoken and proud liberal, and his time in office reflected that. He governed at a time when, nationally, the political atmosphere was very much in the camp of Republican, conservative values. As such, his policies and overwhelming popularity of the time could be interpreted as a liberal and Democratic rebuke to the federal policies of the Reagan administration, which would pursue policies that led to increased inequality, homelessness, and poverty. Just as in the 1980s, the election of a liberal Democrat to serve as governor of a state of 20 million people could show that there were viable, progressive alternatives to the right-wing policies en vogue at the national level.
The only problem with this narrative is that Andrew Cuomo has not governed as a liberal; rather, he has governed as a mainstream, "serious" Democrat. This breed of the Democratic Party calls itself centrist but in reality is center-right. Generally speaking, the traditional American political spectrum for decades was that of two large, Big Tent parties, both of which were coalitions ranging from the center-left to moderate for the Democrats and center-right to moderate for the Republicans. The past 30 years has seen a shift in this paradigm, however, as the Republican Party has moved ever farther to the right, and much of the Democratic Party has shifted along with them. In doing so, they have abandoned the core, fundamental soul of their party and betrayed those whose interests they most need to represent.
Governor Cuomo exemplifies this mainstream Democratic strand. He embodies the "centrist" Democrats who have been nominated for president since Michael Dukakis in 1988 showed that true liberals had become laughingstocks, unable to be elected. President Clinton, a Southern Democrat, attempted health care reform, tried to allow homosexuals to openly serve in the military, slightly raised taxes on the rich, and presided over a period of economic expansion for the United States. All of these things were generally applauded by the liberal base of the Democratic Party. What the liberals did not care about was the fact that his economic policies were, in certain crucial areas, to the right of Nixon. Clinton campaigned on "ending welfare" as we know it, and his approval of a bill that did just that was a huge step forward in the conservative assault against the already-meager social safety net in America. His deregulation of the financial sector was a major cause of the financial calamity that would engulf the United States several years later. He did nothing much, as a Democratic president, to reduce inequality or enact any other liberal policies of substance. But he remained a popular president, especially among liberal, because of the rare treats he threw to the Left.
Governor Cuomo's policies reflect this type of Democratic politician. His single greatest achievement so far must be considered the passage of a gay marriage bill, which made New York the biggest state by far to enact such legislation and in the process effectively assured his re-election due to the importance of this issue to the liberal base of his party. To be sure, this is a significant and welcome milestone of progress in American society. His efforts in getting it through the Republican-controlled Senate are to be given the highest commendations.
This one admittedly outstanding success serves to gloss over the other conservative, right-wing policies that he has enacted. While calling himself a "progressive who is broke", Governor Cuomo was faced with a rather large budget deficit and unable to borrow money to help pay for it. He refused, however, to extend a surtax on millionaires that was favored by the Democratic-controlled Assembly and would have covered almost a quarter of the multi-billion dollar shortfall in the budget. Instead, Cuomo has presided over mass layoffs of state employees, huge cuts in funding to public education, and prolonged fights with labor unions over issues such as collective bargaining and health care. He has supported the use of fracking in Upstate New York after declaring it unsafe for New York City (if it's unsafe for one area, why would it be safe for another?). He has enacted a mandate relief bill that was originally a passionately conservative idea and has been proven to be ineffective.
When Cuomo was running for office, he did not especially seek out the help of the Democratic Party's most consistent and loyal supporters: labor unions. Of course, this did not matter - who were they going to vote for, the Republican? It remains to be seen what the final effect of his cuts to social, health care, and education spending will be - but the important point is that his draconian fiscal measures fully encapsulate the ideology of the party that the vast majority of New Yorkers did not vote for.
Now, Governor Cuomo will be able to achieve a second term as governor with ease and, if he seeks it, can be a viable candidate for president in 2016. He will be re-elected as governor because he passed a gay marriage law. That this is such an important piece of legislation to liberal supporters, as well as the fact that there are only a handful of states (all in the Northeast) that have passed such laws, means that it is a landmark piece of legislation that will effectively dominate any summary of his tenure for the next several years. There will be little discussion of his atrocious budgetary decisions or that these decisions would have been almost identical to a Republican governor's. Even if there were such a discussion, who should the millions of Democratic voters elect, then? They won't vote for a Republican who is even further to the right than Cuomo. There is in actuality, no real good choice for voters.
This is a result of the Democratic Party's abandonment of its soul. There will also not be an issue made of the governor's fiscal policies among liberals, and that is the liberal seduction.
The Democratic Party, as an alleged party of the Left, is supposed to stand for the excluded of society; racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious minorities, women, organized labor, the poor, the forgotten. Representing the Other means enacting policies that improve their condition and stand for what they stand for. This translates to social progress, but also should result in economic policies that reduce inequality, strengthen the safety net, and generally give a viable, progressive alternative to that of the Right. There are becoming fewer and fewer Democrats who embody this duality of social and economic liberalism, and fewer and fewer liberals who will make this something politically accountable to the politicians who no longer act in such a way.
Governor Cuomo can become Presidential Candidate Cuomo in 2016 (and he could win, too); for the Left, he can say "I passed a gay marriage law"; for the so-called middle, he can say "I reformed health care, worked with both parties, and made hard decisions that were necessary to New York on a path to fiscal security"; and for the Right, he can say "I passed a budget ahead of schedule, without raising taxes, in New York!" By showing favorable sides of himself to the Left, Right, and Center, Cuomo would be a formidable candidate in the Democratic primaries and the general election. His is such a good template for success that Maryland governor Martin O'Malley is now also going to attempt to pass a gay marriage law in a state where Democrats heavily outnumber Republicans.
This is the template of the modern day, mainstream, centrist, "serious" Democrat. The safety net is an entitlement program that can and should be tweaked (read: shredded). Universal health care is a pipe dream. Taxes are bad. Cutting education funding is a responsible decision. Labor unions are nice fundraisers, but let's face it, they're on the decline and they have to be realistic. Even illegal, malicious, unjust, preemptive war is acceptable (the number of prominent Democrats, many of whom were considered "liberal", who voted for the Iraq War Resolution is too many to count). It's important that the middle class is strong (but no substantial steps are taken to bolster them). Women should have the right to choose whether to have an abortion, the riff-raff should stay out of areas where decent people do their business (what have "serious" Democrats done about the prison industrial complex? What about improving the lives of the millions of impoverished and oppressed minority population?) and at the same time, we need to ensure that business, Wall Street, and the wealthiest campaign donors enjoy the good life, above everything else and even at the expense of everyone else.
The United States needs and deserves viable choices and alternatives when choosing for whom to vote. The Democratic Party's abandonment of their historic core ideals too often make this choice a false one for Americans. America needs a bold, robust, viable progressive alternative to the policies of the Right. The Democratic Party must fulfill this need, and come up with a 21st-century New Deal, a 21st-century Fair Deal, a 21st-century Great Society. The void of the past 35 years has been deafening; now is the time for the Left to roar.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
The Liberal Seduction; or, the Abandonment of a Party's Soul
Labels:
democrats,
liberalism,
politics,
progressivism,
united states
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment