I actually don't necessarily disagree with anything Leo said about comparing Green to the other progressive Dems like Hevesi or Ferrer. What is encouraging is that all three have good strong progressive positions in a wide range of areas. I met Green once and he did seem to have a stick up his ass - not on the level of Jerry Brown who ranks as the number one politician who nearly instantly alienated me as one of the biggest personal ass----- I ever met, but I can see where Green could be problematic. He was a Naderite, which implies both good things and a certain lone wolf holier-than-thou approach to politics.
But that is a separate issue from the issue criticism that Doug was making about Green. We should be glad that there are real contenders for mayor who are arguably to the left of Green-- it implies a great step forward from the years of Guiliani.
Nathan Newman nathan at newman.org http://www.nathannewman.org
----- Original Message -----
From: LeoCasey at aol.com
To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 12:18 AM
Subject: Mark Green: Dilettante Wanker or Patrician Liberal?
I believe that there is some validity to both Doug's and Nathan's arguments,
although on different points, regarding the Mark Green candidacy for NYC
mayor.
Doug is correct, I believe, that Mark Green is not the marvelous progressive
some make him out to be: he does not approach Villaragosa, the progressive
union-Latino candidate for the LA mayoralty. The notion that he stands heads
and shoulders above the other Democratic candidates, especially Ferrer and
Hevesi, just does not hold water. Much of the endorsements of him, such as
the Nation endorsement that made that completely overwrought evaluation of
his superiority, are based on personal-political associations of many years,
rather than an evaluation of his merits and demerits as a potential mayor. An
actual evaluation of the different candidates does not sustain the claims of
superiority from a progressive point of view.
I had a real fight on the DSA listserv with Jim Chapin, someone with whom I
don't usually have such disagreements, over NYC DSA's and the Working
Families Party endorsements of Green. I characterized Green as a patrician
liberal -- a particular NYC type, straight out of the Upper East Side, with a
know-it-all, noblese oblige worldview. In this respect, he follows very
closely the last NYC mayor from the Upper East Side, John Lindsay. Green
parades his Harvard law degree like it was a royal pedigree, and he is known
inside NYC progressive political circles as a very obnoxious person -- right
up there in the Bella Abzug league -- with whom it is difficult to maintain
civil relations and virtually impossible to work for. His support is
relatively broad at this point in the contest, but I do not think that it is
that deep, and it may well be tested in a two person run-off primary.
Like Lindsay, Green has a strained relationship with the NYC trade union
movement. His campaign speaks of being endorsed by 22 different unions, but
it carefully avoids going into particulars since the list does not include
any of the big three in electoral terms [1199/SEIU, UFT, DC 37/AFSCME].
Rather, the list has a number of Teamster locals endorsements, and some small
outfits -- the Deputy Wardens Association and the Fire Department Fire
Protection Inspectors -- that most people in the labor movement would not
recognize. DC 37/AFSCME endorsed Vallone; there is some disagreement among
the locals within it on that endorsement, but not in Green's favor; they
would rather have endorsed Ferrer. The UFT Executive Board vote to recommend
the endorsement of Hevesi yesterday, and the Delegate Assembly is most likely
to support that recommendation. My friends in 1199/SEIU tell me that an
endorsement of Green from that quarter is unlikely. Certainly, there will be
no Central Labor Council endorsement of Green.
The UFT endorsement of Hevesi makes perfect sense from the vantage point of
our particular concerns for public education and teachers. On these issues,
Hevesi -- and Ferrer, too, to a lesser degree -- is far better than Green.
Despite two terms as Public Advocate, Green has no record to speak of public
education. The main educational plank of his platform is to lower class size
in the K-3 grades, a proposal which has already been under implementation for
a number of years, so it would provide minimal change for the better. [Since
NYC public schools are so overcrowded, a lot of schools lack the physical
space to create more, smaller classes, even if they were given the additional
teachers.] He equivocates on raising teacher salaries, despite the fact that
the current gap of approximately 25% with suburban teacher salaries is
creating a massive teacher shortage in city schools. He talks about rewarding
merit in ways that sound very much like Guiliani's merit pay schemes. By
contrast, Hevesi has a very thought out plan for how to improve the public
schools, and has pledged to raise taxes for that purpose, if he can not find
sufficient funds in the general budget. [This is important because Guiliani
is creating a 'poison pill' budget now with significant tax decreases which
would make it very difficult to have any spending initiatives in the budgets
of the coming years.] Ferrer has also detailed a plan on how to pay for
improvements. Neither Vallone nor Green has done so. Hevesi has flaws as a
candidate, but they are not in the area of public education.
There is a history of bad blood and antagonism between Green and the UFT
President, Randi Weingarten, to the extent that it has been discussed in the
NY Times on several occasions. I would not be entirely surprised if there was
a teacher strike during his first year of office, since teachers have waited
far too long for a new contract to put with some of the antagonistic nonsense
he has communicated to the UFT. This could well be his undoing, just as the
TWU strike led by Mike Quill was the undoing of Lindsay when he first entered
office.
I disagree with Doug, however, in his general maximalist approach to this and
other elections, always seeking the politically correct candidate on every
issue. Moreover, I believe that a progressive candidate can and should have a
position of how to reduce crime. Crime is highest in the inner city, and it
is poor folk and folk of color who suffer most from it. On top of that, under
the Guiliani regime, they have had to fear an out of control police that
often posed as much of a threat to them as the criminals. A progressive
platform on crime would advocate policies to ensure that poor communities
received the same quality of protection as the rich, and that police
respected people of color.
I also think that Doug is off the mark on what he thinks NYC unions could and
should have done under the Guiliani regime. But it is late at night. I will
go into it tomorrow if anyone cares to know.
Leo Casey
United Federation of Teachers
260 Park Avenue South
New York, New York 10010-7272 (212-598-6869)
Power concedes nothing without a demand.
It never has, and it never will.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress.
Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation are men who
want crops without plowing the ground. They want rain without thunder and
lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters.
-- Frederick Douglass --
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20010824/dc1a146a/attachment.htm>