The New Yorker: Why I voted for Bill de Blasio ("You cannot govern from the left")

[cali]

Tuesday morning, I went around the corner and voted for Bill de Blasio in New York’s Democratic mayoral primary. At the last moment, I almost changed my mind and switched to Bill Thompson, an experienced and likable fellow who doesn’t get nearly enough credit for running Mike Bloomberg close in 2009, and who, along with Christine Quinn, was trying to keep de Blasio below forty per cent, and force a runoff. But in the end I stuck with de Blasio, and here is why. My reasoning will initially seem a bit far removed from what’s happening in New York, but bear with me.

Years ago, when Tony Blair was fresh in Downing Street, I asked one of New Labour’s top economic advisers why the Blair government, which took over in 1997, was so intent on establishing a reputation as fiscally responsible and socially moderate. “Ruling from the left is not an option,” he said, or words to that effect. “You have to establish credibility with the markets and with the public. Then, but only then, you can do some progressive things.” Some years later, I interviewed a well-known Democrat who served under Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, and during a discussion of the Obama Administration’s response to the 2008 financial crisis he said something strikingly similar to what I had heard in London. “You cannot rule from the left. Look what happened to Mitterand and Schröder.” (Elected to the Élysée in 1981, the French Socialist introduced a sweeping package of economic reforms, only to reverse course two years later. Chancellor Schröder’s U-turn wasn’t as stark, but during the second half of his term, which ran from 1998 to 2005, he swung to the right, trimming welfare benefits and relaxing Germany’s tight labor laws.)

Both of my interviewees saw themselves as realists. The wisdom they expounded appeared no less persuasive for being conventional. Since the stagflation and conservative political backlash of the late nineteen-seventies, it has been subscribed to by almost everyone on the center left, myself included. But over the years, it has ossified, inhibiting political debate and greatly circumscribing the list of admissible ideas. Confronted with a globalized economy and rising inequality, progressives have been hamstrung in their response. Be careful what you ask for, the realists warn them. If you go too far, you’ll upset the bond markets and frighten away the rich folks who pay the taxes.

What’s this got to do with Bill from Park Slope? On a smaller, some might say picayune, scale, this is the same debate New York Democrats have been having. From the left came de Blasio, with his “tale of two cities” and his proposal to raise taxes on the rich to finance expanded pre-kindergarten for the poor and middle class, who are the primary users of city-run programs. From the realist camp came Mayor Bloomberg, the departing incumbent, and his supporters, warning that de Blasio is a dangerous radical who will alienate Wall Street, send wealthy financiers fleeing to Connecticut, and destroy the city’s resurgent economy. The other Democratic candidates were caught in the middle. To be sure, they all support things like expanded day care, more affordable housing, and better transport links, but they appear to have accepted that the city can’t afford anything except very modest steps in these directions.

<snip>

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2013/09/why-i-voted-for-bill-deblasio.html

[Democracyinkind]

1. How this relates to postmodern politics...

I haven't really concerned myself with this election, reading this was actually my very first step. But there's much to ponder in the article you quoted. Especially this part:

“Ruling from the left is not an option,” he said, or words to that effect. “You have to establish credibility with the markets and with the public. Then, but only then, you can do some progressive things.”

I totally agree that this is what passes for "realism" these days. But is it actually true? What about FDR? Did he get "market cred" before going socialist? Did the labor unions? Was any victory for labor/ the people actually won this way? I think this is a very pertinent question. Or is this dogma of "realism" something that is only applicable to postmodern politics?

I can't help but think that this is THE fundamental credo of the third way. But I don't believe that it's true. It's stated as some kind of law of nature; but IMO the only reason that politics have become enslaved to markets is the assumption that growth is the only thing a democracy has to offer to its constituents. Well not growth, technically, but the creation of wealth - unfortunately, we have been duped into believing that "growing" is the only politically viable option to create wealth (that and cutting state spending). If, as I just suggested, this really is the fundemantal credo of postmodern politics, then it's no surprise that we're on the way to hell.

Cali, sorry for hijacking your thread. But the part I quoted just really pushed my buttons. I have no idea whom I would have voted for in this election if I could have, except that I'm sure that Weiner wouldn't have gotten my vote.

[cali]

4. hey, DiK, you didn't hijack it in the least. I read your post with

great interest.

I'm sure you got the gist of the article- which was that de Blasio has been unapologetic about his intent to govern, albeit modestly, from the left.

<snip>

To some extent, the details of de Blasio’s plan, and whether it stands a realistic chance of being enacted—it would need the approval of the state legislature—are secondary to its symbolism. The big message de Blasio is sending is that, under his leadership, the city will try to counter the prevailing economic trends, redistributing for worthwhile purposes a bit more of the fruits of economic growth, which in today’s economy tend to end up overwhelmingly in the baskets of the highest earners. And it’s not just tax policy. Just as it did under Fiorello LaGuardia, who left behind expansive public parks, a substantial stock of low-cost housing, and a unified subway system, and other great mayors of the past, New York can take the lead in pushing progressive causes, acting as an innovative laboratory for economic policy and urban planning, de Blasio argues.

<snip>

[Octafish]

2. The Left has no money, comparatively.

Money, not the will of the people, equates to power in democracy today.

[geek tragedy]

3. Di blasio is plenty friendly with real estate developers

and there were a lot of affluent people voting for him.

[cali]

5. in my book, there's much more to appreciate about him than not

[geek tragedy]

6. I voted for him, with enthusiasm. nt