Mark Green: Dilettante Wanker or Patrician Liberal?

Nathan Newman nathan at newman.org
Fri Aug 24 14:55:08 PDT 2001


Getting back to this late. Just finished a move to Jersey City and had problems with my computer.

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>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list