As a black New Yorker, I watched with a mix of embarrassment, confusion, and frustration Thursday night as a collection of current and former black New York elected officials and community leaders emerged from a hastily-called
meeting in Harlem to declare that they were of the opinion that Governor Paterson should not resign from office at this time. It was a fascinating stance this group had taken. They didn't come out and state that they wanted him to complete his term; they merely stated that they would not ask him to resign at this time. While I get the distinction, I can guarantee that most Americans -- especially most nonblack non Democrats -- will not. What they will see is blacks protecting their own even when he gets caught in the act.
What are these people doing? I thought to myself.
It's not that I wanted the group to come out and declare that Paterson should step down (though I do think it would be the right thing for him to do). That would have been a painful and unnecessarily humiliating event if it had involved
any group of Democrats, much less a group of black Democrats. If any such group held such a strong and collective opinion, I would rather they do it in private.
No, my problem is that by making a big show of trying to shield someone who probably does not deserve such treatment -- and who is almost certainly destined not to be allowed to complete his term -- these officials make themselves, and by extension, the larger black New York community, appear embarrasingly out of touch at best, and on the wrong side of justice at worst.
My specific criticisms:
First of all, I wonder how many of these black officials were
women. In the news reports I've seen, there has been nothing but a parade of men -- Al Sharpton, Eric Adams, Carl McCall, David Dinkins, Gregory Meeks -- stepping before the mic to declare their support for Paterson. I admire all of these brothers, but damn. Surely they realize what kind of message that image sends.
This is not an irrelevant point. The most notorious of the charges against Paterson is that he tried to cover up a case of potentially criminal battery of a woman. By a 6'7" man. Apparently there was not unanimity within Thursday night's powow over what the stance toward Paterson should be. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of the female officials, however many there were, found themselves in the minority opposition on this one.
Then we are hearing out of this meeting that concerns over Paterson's ability to govern effectively as the scandal plays out are overblown. As evidence, the officials cited by example Bill Clinton presiding over the US even during impeachment hearings. In so doing, however, they overlook a crucial fact: Clinton had the support of the
majority of his constituents, who widely believed that the charges against him were of no moment with respect to the appropriateness of his being allowed to govern. The same can not be said of Paterson, where as of Friday morning, only 46% of New Yorkers said they wanted him to finish his term. Having lost the respect of more than a few Democratic state legislators as well -- and not just over this incident; attitudes have been building against Paterson for a while up in Albany -- his ability to govern effectively is not at all a clear thing.
Next, we are hearing out of this meeting the assertion that to expect Paterson to step down at this time is to deny him due process. To that, I'd remind everyone that Paterson has already admitted communicating with the alleged victim, Ms. Booker, the day before she was to appear in court against her alleged attacker -- Mr. Paterson's friend and close aide. This alone is at best highly inappropriate, and at worst witness tampering. Given that the superintendant of the state police -- who, with zero justification whatsoever, allegedly contaced Ms. Booker as well -- resigned rather than wait for due process to have its say suggests to many fair-minded people that they all knew what they were doing was wrong. The odds that this didn't play out pretty much the way most of us think it did -- that Patterson had people who report to him try to influence Ms. Booker's handling of the alleged incident -- are very slim indeed. Due process is a legal concept. It's true that he should not be punished by the state without due process. But as to whether he should continue to try to lead the people of New York, a more appropriate standard might be whether he retains the trust of said people. If the abovementioned poll is any indication, it would seem not.
Then we are hearing out of this meeting that to expect Paterson to step down at this time while Republicans like Governor Sanford of South Carolina remain in office after exhibiting extremely inappropriate behavior is an example of unfair treatment of Democrats, and particularly black Democrats. To that I say, are we using Republicans as behavior models now? If Republican voters want their governors to stay in office after having abandoned the state without notice and remaining incommunicado for an extended period while pursuing personal interests, that's their business. Democrats should stand for higher ethical standards than that.
While it is Paterson's decision whether to resign, it could be some undodgeable force -- for example legal or impeachment precedings -- that have the final say. For these black politicians to insert themselves in this way (had New Yorkers called for a statement from the state's black leaderhip?) does more harm than good. It gives the appearance of a black polity not mature enough to acknowledge wrongdoings within its ranks. And it gives the impression that Democrats' recent attacks against Republicans for their so-called culture of curruption were nothing more than instruments of self-serving hipocrisy.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
