Singing the Blues in a Blue City By GIGI E. GEORGES and HOWARD L. WOLFSON
WITH post-election analysis raising questions about what the Democrats can do to recapture City Hall in 2009, it's time for a good hard look in the mirror, and a new approach.
Despite holding a four-to-one advantage in party enrollment, Democrats have lost four straight New York City mayoral elections. One or two is a fluke. Four in a row - the longest dry run for Democrats in our city's history - is a trend.
As Democrats, we may be tempted to explain away last Tuesday's outcome as a result of factors unique to this race. In truth, the lessons of this loss run deeper than any single candidate or contest. This race was set against a changing political landscape that requires us to think differently about campaigns in New York City. We do not pretend to have all the answers. But here is a start:
Identity politics matter less. Fernando Ferrer was the city's first Puerto Rican mayoral nominee. History suggested that he should have received more than three-quarters of the Latino vote; polling suggested he barely cracked 60 percent. Virginia Fields, a black borough president, won only three majority-black assembly districts in this year's primary. Group identity is simply no longer a reliable predictor of voting behavior.
The political leanings of new immigrants, without historic ties to the Democratic Party, have accelerated this trend. New hurdles face campaign strategies that assume a coalition of African-Americans, Latinos and white liberals will automatically pull the Democratic lever. Multiracial coalitions continue to be critical, but we must assemble these new coalitions by putting aside old assumptions about voting behavior.
Ideas matter more. For the last decade, Republicans have driven the city's policy agenda while Democrats have too often been seen as defending the status quo. This is untenable. New York City needs a progressive version of the Manhattan Institute to generate left-of-center policies that are urban-focused. Whether it's a new vision or a New Democratic plan, Democrats running for mayor in 2009 will have to offer more than just more of the same. This does not mean abandoning the party's core principles, but it does mean exploring updated solutions, and a willingness to test promising and innovative policies, even if we ruffle some feathers. New York City Democrats should be in the forefront of charting an urban agenda for the 21st century. If we fail to offer new solutions to our city's problems we do not deserve to lead - and we won't.
Security remains a critical issue. America is at war, and after two attacks here, our city remains a potential battleground. Although voters tell pollsters that security is not a primary concern on the local level, Mayor Michael Bloomberg's poll numbers jumped significantly after last month's terrorist scare. While New Yorkers have done a remarkable job of rebuilding the city after 9/11, the horrors of that day are never far from the surface.
A candidate for mayor has to be knowledgeable, surefooted and credible on security and demonstrate real managerial competence. If voters do not trust a candidate to keep them secure and to manage the city well, they will simply not vote for him or her.
Money makes a difference. Considering the disparities in their campaign chests, Mayor Bloomberg probably spent more on takeout food for his staff during this campaign than Mr. Ferrer spent on some of his ads. The mayor's financial dominance was critical to his victory; it allowed him to begin advertising in the spring and remain on the air unchallenged for weeks. Of course, Mayor Bloomberg's victory wasn't just about money. He and his team ran a strong campaign and in many ways he has governed just as a socially liberal Democrat would. Still, the rise in the mayor's poll numbers largely tracked his advertising budget, and in the end, Mr. Bloomberg probably spent about $74 million, outspending Mr. Ferrer by a 10-to-one margin. Such a lopsided ratio prevents voters from hearing both sides in an even-handed manner and distorts the terms of the debate.
One way to avoid repeating this situation is to re-examine the city's campaign finance law. We do not think it wise to infuse more public money into campaigns, but when candidates who pay for their own campaigns significantly exceed the law's spending limits, opponents who stay within the system should be permitted to raise larger contributions.
Our local laws should also unshackle the parties and allow them to play the role that the McCain-Feingold law permits in federal campaigns by running coordinated grassroots efforts and paying for independent advertising. This, after all, is a core role and responsibility of parties. At the same time, the Democratic Party must take advantage of the opportunity to cultivate small donors over the next four years.
The coming months offer an opportunity for New York Democrats to assess these changing dynamics and act with renewed energy and purpose. Too much is at stake for the goals and principles we value as a party - and for the future of our city. We will need all Democrats to come together in the wake of this election to ensure that we are best prepared to win in 2009.
---
Gigi E. Georges and Howard L. Wolfson are partners at a consulting firm whose clients include the New York State Democratic Party.