Like Lindsay like Mike?
Mayor Bloomberg
faces a political climate similar to that of a predecessor in 1969
Staten Island Advance - March 6, 2005
The liberal Republican mayor is virtually
friendless. A long list of Democrats sense his vulnerability and
jockey for the nomination, certain they can clobber the mayor in
November. Disaffected conservatives within his own party, unhappy
with their “limousine liberal” standard bearer, organize a
grassroots challenge. And the municipal unions—particularly the
teachers — bitterly complain about mayor’s re-forms and vow to send
him’ packing.
No, we are not describing the plight of Michael Bloomberg in 2005,
but the situation John Lindsay faced in 1969. There are remarkable,
and instructive, parallels between the two races.
In 1965 John Lindsay became mayor with only 43.3 percent of the
vote, defeating Democrat Abe Beame (39.5 percent) and Conservative
William F. Buckley (a surprising 12.9 percent). The living-color
Lindsay promised youth and vigor, a sharp contrast to the
twelve-year, black-and-white administration of Robert Wagner.
But the telegenic Lindsay repeatedly stumbled, even granting that
the 1960s were a tough time for urban America. Savvy municipal
unions manipulated Lindsay’s young, inexperienced staff and won
generous contracts.
Lindsay’s very public efforts to reach out to the black community
fed the resentments of outer-borough whites. In the wake of the
poisonous 55-day strike in 1968, teachers felt the mayor sold them
out to black activists by supporting community control of
neighborhood schools.
In 1969, State Senator John Marchi of Staten Island, disappointed
and frustrated by Lindsay’s handling of the teachers’ strike, took
up the cause of the true Republicans. At a time of rising crime and
civil unrest, Marchi promised to restore law-and-order. This appeal
energized the party faithful in Queens, Brooklyn, and Staten Island
and propelled Marchi to victory in a close Republican primary.
But the Democrats again lived up to Will Rogers’s quip: “I belong to
no organized political party, I’m a Democrat.” Controller Mario
Procaccino, the most conservative candidate, took the nomination
with less than a third of the vote, just ahead of Bob Wagner and
Herman Badillo (after that debacle the law was changed to mandate a
runoff if no candidate receives 40 percent).
Procaccino’s surprise victory doomed Marchi, who thought Lindsay and
Wagner would split the liberal vote and he could skate through. As
Marchi’s aide remarked, “Who figures Bob Wagner loses a Democratic
primary?”
Lindsay got lucky. Marchi and Procaccino split the opposition and
the mayor, running on the now defunct but then significant Liberal
Party line, won with only 42 percent of the vote, holding together
his coalition of Manhattan liberals, disaffected Democrats, and
minorities. The morning after, Dick Aurelio explained that the key
to victory was losing the primary.
Mayor Bloomberg has many of Lindsay’s problems. The question is,
will he have Lindsay’s luck?
Like Lindsay, Bloomberg, the accidental Republican, is out of step
with his party. A politically moderate, life-long Democrat, in 2001
he shrewdly calculated that there was a clearer path to City Hall
through the vacuum that was the city’s Republican party rather than
slogging through the crowded Democratic field.
Republicans never warmed to their ostensible leader, no matter how
much money he was willing to spend, and even after he hosted the GOP
convention. When he raised property taxes to cover the budget gap in
2003, Republicans boiled over.
The mayor has since been marginally successful in mending fences,
delivering property tax rebates to homeowners this election year.
Now, former councilman Tom Ognibene of queens is challenging the
mayor for the nomination. Like Marchi in 1969, Ognibene is funning
because he believes the mayor is not a real Republican, having
embraced heretical positions on taxes, gay marriage, abortion, and,
God help us, gun control.
So far, the anti-Bloomberg backlash has gained Ognibene the support
of GOP leaders in queens and he seems to be gaining traction within
Staten Island’s fractious party.
But this may be good news. Freed of any obligation to the
Republicans, Bloomberg would run as an unaligned independent, with
the cross-endorsement, perhaps, of a minor party like the
Independence Party. He could comfortably tack to the center and
force his Democratic opponent to the left.
Bloomberg’s fate ultimately depends on the Democrats. If they rally
behind a strong candidate, they will likely win in November. But
they have a history of such viciousness in primary contests that the
wounds fester. And it could be even more difficult for the nominee
if the party fractures along racial or ethnic lines.
Given the current field, and considering the party’s recent past,
that is likely.
A nasty primary will either keep either African-American or Latino
voters home on Election Day, or send white voters into the Bloomberg
column. Can Fernando Ferrer, C. Virginia Fields, Gifford Miller, and
Anthony Weiner rise above that legacy? Will, the Democrats show
their strength as a real political party, or are they just a ballot
line?
Two other factors set 2005 apart from 1969. Even with his missteps,
Lindsay had a genuine liberal constituency behind him. Bloomberg has
no natural constituency he can count on. On the other hand, he has a
personal fortune. To win in 2001 he spent nearly $70 million, or
roughly $90 a vote. He could spend $100 million this time.
If you can’t be lucky like Lindsay, it may be enough to be rich like
Bloomberg.
Richard Flanagan is associate professor of political science.
Jeffrey A. Kroessler is the oral historian for the Marchi Papers, at
the College of Staten Island.
By Richard Flanagan and
Jeffrey A. Kroessler
Reprinted here with permission from the
|
|
