My impression of this article is that it depicts Giuliani as taking the Left seriously, whereas Kifner and probably, his colleagues on the N.Y. Times do not. Neither is particularly apt at political analysis, and Giuliani's confused remarks about philosophy (at once pernicious and beneficial) are very funny, but they don't really need to think philosophically or analytically -- they have power. The gardens issue is one of how to gentrify the remaining non-upper-class areas of Manhattan; Giuliani favors a hard-cop routine, but the NYT folks probably think soft-cop will do the job just fine. For Giuliani, then, the protesters who interfered with his project of selling off the gardens to developers were effective political opponents -- they stopped him -- while for the NYT they were silly people, clowns who will not really interfere with the wave of boutiques, cafes, and thousand-dollar rents pushing their way inexorably into the slums. In fact, they may well assist it -- with its little trees and spruced-up storefronts, Stanton Street ain't what it used to be (a place where the nicer people feared to tread), and many of its present denizens better be preparing for the rigors of the Bronx.
Gordon gcf at panix.com