Thursday, November 14, 2002
Old-timer regrets the change away from idealistic politics
LOOKING AHEAD by Wally Dobelis
To start, a shorthand message from Dr. Paranoia: "Peace lovers rejoice, the Bush victory strengthens the world's chances to defang Saddam peacefully - but the peacekeepers better watch out for "uncontrollable, patriot" Iraqi suicide bombers, and the Administration better counter the agitprop of American imperialism and greed for Iraqi oil (the Russians have, by obtaining assurances that oil prices will be maintained)."
On my way to the polls on East 19th Street , there were three paid election
workers. distributing literature and actively asking voters for their
support, two for Liz Krueger and one for Andrew Eristoff. This immediately evoked some reflections about the changes of the last decades in the politics, the politicians, and the electorates' attitude against politics.
In my day, the 1950s into the 1970s, the political movers-to-be were mostly poor
and idealistic (well..the ones we cared about). They scurried around to political clubs, visiting us, another breed of poor and activist political opinion-holders, talking to us and asking for
our support. We were the grass roots, the people who decided who in the
candidacy best represented the ideals (yes, ideals, children) of the
community we were, and we endorsed them. We collected signatures on
designating petitions, we spent evening after evening making phone calls (live) to enrolled party
members, and on the first Tuesday of November we stood at the polling
place, freezing, handing out literature. Later, we came in as inspectors
at closing, collecting numbers of votes, which we brought back to the club.
Yes, club. Reform Democratic, specifically. The club was a dingy low-rent 2nd
story room with a phone, or several (during campaigns), and folding chairs, paid for by our dues. Who were we? A bunch of ordinary people, imbued with some political idealism, a few lawyers who'd liked to be judges (a good job, then). We'd get together, nearly daily, gab and politic, rent a group house on Fire Island for the summer, hang out together. Occasionally we threw cheap fund-raisers, to garner some rent money, and politicians came and paid for their dinners. No club quarters survive, the late Jefferson Democratic was the last, on 20th, corner 1st Ave, if memory serves.
Presently all clubs beg, borrow or rent space for their monthly meetings, and pursue the same activities. But the intensity, the interest and the dedication is on a lower plane, way lower.
Clubs are associated with Assembly Districts, run by District Leaders, the
lowest elected office in NYC. The Tammany-type clubs had been pure quid-pro-quo, members were given city jobs for votes. The leaders - their sage was the famous George Washington Plunkitt who defined "honest graft" and admitted that "I seen the opportunity, and I took it" - were largely thieves, but they took care of their constituents, and performed a social function. Certain ones, including Mayor Fernando Wood and Boss Tweed, were sporadic social reformers.
The Democratic Reform clubs, as described above, were a reaction toTammany Hall and its corruption, after WWII, prompted by Eleanor Roosevelt,
Governor Herbert Lehman and a few others. Courtland Nicholl ran for Congress in the 9th (Silk Stocking), Frank Roosevelt beat Sol Bloom on the Upper West Side, supported by young WWII veterans and Columbia Law grads. Ed Koch closed out the Tamawa Club in the
Village, last refuge of the last important Tammany leader Carmine DeSapio,
in the 1960s.
Charles Kinsolving, one of the Young Turks, attributes the political power of the people, as exemplified by the grassroots clubs, to the social legislation of the New Deal. He sees the growth of the media (giving the pols celebrity status), the unhealthy income polarization, and the commercialization (pols' ability to collect donations under the 1st Amendment had been amplified, and incumbents are sure to get more, lessening the incentives for challengers) as some of the reasons for the fading away of the clubs. One should add the legitimization of greed, motivating the pols who make overtures and commitment to corporations, and the influx of the rich who want to establish a political heritage. Harry Truman and Paul Wellstone were the last good ones who touched people directly, all the others work through the accursed media. A dictum for the ideal politician: bring your message out on the street, listen to the responses of the people, see how they feel and what they want.. Representatives must represent people. Make phone calls.
Speaking of the latter, this November we have heard recorded voices of Charles Schumer, looking for votes for McCall, more for Hevesi, Liz Krueger and C. Spuches. These store-bought marketing messages are intrusive and counter-productive - my take, anyway.
As to the rich who enter politics, there are two or three types. There are those who enter politics with their political parties' approval and a doable agenda (Rockefeller, Corzine, Lautenbach, Bloomberg ), and those who are creating a swing party that will dominate national or local politics by being able to throw support to one or the other of the majors (think of the religious Haredim parties in Israel). Ross Perot of 1992 is of that caliber. You do not hear it announced, but that is their objective, comparable to the roles of the Liberals and the Conservatives in NY, although they offset each other. Ralph Nader and the Greens, with their unrealistic socialist policies, have no hope to be a swing party. They are, in effect, straight spoilers. So is $100-a-vote Golisano, whose motivations are too bizarre to contemplate, although his stated objective of keeping a check on Albany the Gridlock City is commendable but impossible to fulfill. Democracy is wonderful, but the past decades of Dem Assembly and Rep Senate have made Albany an international role model of inactivity and treading water. If Gov. Pataki has national ambitions, he better do something drastic in his lame-duck years.
Speaking of concerns over a single-party control of the administration and both houses, my informal workplace poll revealed that the 12 respondents were evenly split. Six were unconcerned; five of them had not voted and one was happy over the Bush victory. Of the six concerned (all voters), two were mollified by the Republican control. The message is, more's the pity, indifference.
To start, a shorthand message from Dr. Paranoia: "Peace lovers rejoice, the Bush victory strengthens the world's chances to defang Saddam peacefully - but the peacekeepers better watch out for "uncontrollable, patriot" Iraqi suicide bombers, and the Administration better counter the agitprop of American imperialism and greed for Iraqi oil (the Russians have, by obtaining assurances that oil prices will be maintained)."
On my way to the polls on East 19th Street , there were three paid election
workers. distributing literature and actively asking voters for their
support, two for Liz Krueger and one for Andrew Eristoff. This immediately evoked some reflections about the changes of the last decades in the politics, the politicians, and the electorates' attitude against politics.
In my day, the 1950s into the 1970s, the political movers-to-be were mostly poor
and idealistic (well..the ones we cared about). They scurried around to political clubs, visiting us, another breed of poor and activist political opinion-holders, talking to us and asking for
our support. We were the grass roots, the people who decided who in the
candidacy best represented the ideals (yes, ideals, children) of the
community we were, and we endorsed them. We collected signatures on
designating petitions, we spent evening after evening making phone calls (live) to enrolled party
members, and on the first Tuesday of November we stood at the polling
place, freezing, handing out literature. Later, we came in as inspectors
at closing, collecting numbers of votes, which we brought back to the club.
Yes, club. Reform Democratic, specifically. The club was a dingy low-rent 2nd
story room with a phone, or several (during campaigns), and folding chairs, paid for by our dues. Who were we? A bunch of ordinary people, imbued with some political idealism, a few lawyers who'd liked to be judges (a good job, then). We'd get together, nearly daily, gab and politic, rent a group house on Fire Island for the summer, hang out together. Occasionally we threw cheap fund-raisers, to garner some rent money, and politicians came and paid for their dinners. No club quarters survive, the late Jefferson Democratic was the last, on 20th, corner 1st Ave, if memory serves.
Presently all clubs beg, borrow or rent space for their monthly meetings, and pursue the same activities. But the intensity, the interest and the dedication is on a lower plane, way lower.
Clubs are associated with Assembly Districts, run by District Leaders, the
lowest elected office in NYC. The Tammany-type clubs had been pure quid-pro-quo, members were given city jobs for votes. The leaders - their sage was the famous George Washington Plunkitt who defined "honest graft" and admitted that "I seen the opportunity, and I took it" - were largely thieves, but they took care of their constituents, and performed a social function. Certain ones, including Mayor Fernando Wood and Boss Tweed, were sporadic social reformers.
The Democratic Reform clubs, as described above, were a reaction toTammany Hall and its corruption, after WWII, prompted by Eleanor Roosevelt,
Governor Herbert Lehman and a few others. Courtland Nicholl ran for Congress in the 9th (Silk Stocking), Frank Roosevelt beat Sol Bloom on the Upper West Side, supported by young WWII veterans and Columbia Law grads. Ed Koch closed out the Tamawa Club in the
Village, last refuge of the last important Tammany leader Carmine DeSapio,
in the 1960s.
Charles Kinsolving, one of the Young Turks, attributes the political power of the people, as exemplified by the grassroots clubs, to the social legislation of the New Deal. He sees the growth of the media (giving the pols celebrity status), the unhealthy income polarization, and the commercialization (pols' ability to collect donations under the 1st Amendment had been amplified, and incumbents are sure to get more, lessening the incentives for challengers) as some of the reasons for the fading away of the clubs. One should add the legitimization of greed, motivating the pols who make overtures and commitment to corporations, and the influx of the rich who want to establish a political heritage. Harry Truman and Paul Wellstone were the last good ones who touched people directly, all the others work through the accursed media. A dictum for the ideal politician: bring your message out on the street, listen to the responses of the people, see how they feel and what they want.. Representatives must represent people. Make phone calls.
Speaking of the latter, this November we have heard recorded voices of Charles Schumer, looking for votes for McCall, more for Hevesi, Liz Krueger and C. Spuches. These store-bought marketing messages are intrusive and counter-productive - my take, anyway.
As to the rich who enter politics, there are two or three types. There are those who enter politics with their political parties' approval and a doable agenda (Rockefeller, Corzine, Lautenbach, Bloomberg ), and those who are creating a swing party that will dominate national or local politics by being able to throw support to one or the other of the majors (think of the religious Haredim parties in Israel). Ross Perot of 1992 is of that caliber. You do not hear it announced, but that is their objective, comparable to the roles of the Liberals and the Conservatives in NY, although they offset each other. Ralph Nader and the Greens, with their unrealistic socialist policies, have no hope to be a swing party. They are, in effect, straight spoilers. So is $100-a-vote Golisano, whose motivations are too bizarre to contemplate, although his stated objective of keeping a check on Albany the Gridlock City is commendable but impossible to fulfill. Democracy is wonderful, but the past decades of Dem Assembly and Rep Senate have made Albany an international role model of inactivity and treading water. If Gov. Pataki has national ambitions, he better do something drastic in his lame-duck years.
Speaking of concerns over a single-party control of the administration and both houses, my informal workplace poll revealed that the 12 respondents were evenly split. Six were unconcerned; five of them had not voted and one was happy over the Bush victory. Of the six concerned (all voters), two were mollified by the Republican control. The message is, more's the pity, indifference.
# posted by Wally Dobelis @ 3:20 PM 
