This is the time of year when our news staff starts planning how we'll cover the fall elections. We groan a bit; it's hard to be enthusiastic about interviewing dozens of candidates who give predictable answers. And often, there's not a lot of difference between them, other than their political party and their opinion on a few hot-button issues (this year, presumably, mayoral control and same-sex marriage).
Still, politics is part of the lifeblood of the alternative news media, and in general, it's one of our favorite topics. And this year, besides the governor's position, every single New York state legislature seat is on the ballot.
For journalists, what's not to like?
Well, you know what's not to like: the legislature itself and the apparent impossibility of reform.
Yes, New York's legislators do accomplish some things. This year, for instance, they approved doing a study of jury-pool composition. That's important: the perception is that racial minorities are under-represented, but there's been no analysis. Legislators also restricted the use of BPA in products for children 3 and under. They passed an anti-bullying bill. They added another, less generous tier to the state pension plan.
And of course with many issues, it does matter where candidates stand and how they'll vote (gay marriage, campaign finance reform). But this year, with this election - with this legislature, in this state - honestly, we're at a loss. Do we conduct business as usual, interviewing candidates as though their presence in Albany will make one whit of difference?
Do we dignify the legislature's dysfunction by going through the motions?
It's easy to point fingers. And I do appreciate the efforts of elected officials. We say we're proud to live in a democracy, but we love to throw stones at the people we elect to carry out democracy's work.
And yes, most elected officials are honest people with the public's interest at heart. And yes, you can find bad apples in any group: corporate executives, teachers, doctors, priests.
But outright corruption in the New York legislature isn't our only problem. The domination of special interests; the debt; the late budgets; district gerrymandering that guarantees that the same people get re-elected and re-elected and re-elected; New York City's power; the power of legislative leaders; "member items," through which legislators in the majority party get the most money to give to favored local projects and ingratiate themselves with the folks back home....
State government in New York is a mess. The public is upset. And maybe some of the state legislators are, too. But they don't act like it.
It would be hard to be more discouraged. And perhaps the most serious result of the Albany shenanigans is its effect on the public. It's been hard enough to get people to vote. Now? What justification can anyone possibly give a disgusted voter? Some of us will turn out no matter what. It's just what we do. But we're as upset with Albany as anybody else.
And who should we vote for? What difference will it make who gets elected?
Some voters want to toss out all the incumbents. That may make us feel good - and I suppose it would send a message to the political parties. But I don't see what it could accomplish, unless we lived in a more perfect world and third-party candidates actually had a chance. Realistically, though, if we kick out an incumbent Democrat, we'll get a Republican, and vice versa. The leaders of each party will still control things, and the dysfunction will continue.
New York has so many problems, and they are so complex. What we need in government are the very best and brightest. But who in their right mind would want to enter politics now? Who will submit to this kind of system? What kind of people will we get as candidates? Any other than the naïve or the outright corrupt?
Comments for "URBAN JOURNAL: Dreading the fall election" (4)
City Newspaper is not responsible for the content of these comments. City Newspaper reserves the right to remove comments at their discretion.
Wayne said on Jul. 22, 2010 at 12:04pm
Good points, all, but I think the coverage should go beyond the talking heads...
1) The continuity of the Legislature and Governor's Office is the STAFF. They survive and have a great influence over what gets done/not done.
2) No news organization has dissected the budget and revenue pieces that I've found.
3) No structural changes to how NYS funds local projects.
4) No comparison of how other state governments are doing, or analysis of which states do it "right" compared to New York.
The elected officials hold some responsibility, and their leaders have more to be accountable for, yet the career civil servants who actually do the work are never mentioned. They hold great sway over policy and the movement of legislation.
Cuomo is proposing a constitutional convention - it's time for this to happen.
Joe Alati said on Jul. 23, 2010 at 9:35am
I too am tired of the same old predictable sound byte dribble put out by our politicians. I will not call them representatives because I think most of them fail at representing us. They seem to be representing themselves. Within the current election system it is impossible to expect anyone elected to make a difference. We would have more worthy independents running if it were financially feasible. Real campaign reform on a national and state level would fix that but the fox is running the chicken coop so I have no faith that we can expect any different.The public is upset but fail to do much about it. Complacently upset most likely driven by a feeling that we are overwhelmingly powerless. I am from the camp that wants to throw them all out but we need choices and republican and democratic are not one I care to choose. Unfortunately only the wealthy whom sell their souls to one of the 2 parties can get elected in the current system. I can appreciate your opinions but like many others I am at a loss for what to do to inspire and bring about change.
Dave Atias said on Jul. 23, 2010 at 8:03pm
Mary Anna,
Let's participate in an exercise. You may have done this in high school. You know that third-party candidates "don't have a chance." But you have to come up with an argument for everyone who is frustrated with our system to vote third-party without saying that we "don't have a chance." It's like being on a debate team. It doesn't matter if you believe it or not, you're here to win the debate.
Here's one possible strategy. You could point out that even though third-party candidates tend to be called "naive" or "angry" by the media, when their ideas are picked up by some leader of industry or mainstream politician they're seen as genius. Case-in-point:
When I ran for school board in the city, I was pretty much written off. I talked about how bad the lunches were and proposed using locally-produced food to change that. That came up recently. I also proposed mentors for every RCSD student. Remember how brilliant that was when RIT's president advocated for that a few years later. Heath care in schools? Enter Manny Rivera. I have no plans to run for office again, so I'll leave it there, even though there are more issues that fit this.
Mary Anna, you have your own bully pulpit. If you think we need third-party candidates in office you have a number of options. How about picking one of these true third-party candidates and doing a series on him/her showing people how difficult it is to run without big money behind you.
You could pick one candidate this year and give her unprecedented publicity. Need a suggestion? How about Julia Willebrand? She's running for Comptroller for the Green Party. You could mention her in every column you write from now until November. Check out her website to make sure you agree with her platform. www.juliaforcomptroller.com/ By focusing on the Comptroller race you won't upset anyone by taking away votes from Cuomo.
You could be a shining example for young voters to vote for what you really believe in and not the lesser of two evils. Mary Anna, you can be part of the solution or part of the problem. What's it gonna be?
Tom Janowski said on Jul. 24, 2010 at 10:06am
This is a simple, no brainer. If candidates exist, they deserve to be mentioned. If third-party candidates are left out of the reporting mix, then the reporter/news media actually creates news and a false situation in which choices seem so sadly limited to the lowest common denominator candidates offered up by the Republican and Democratic Parties.
It horrifies me to NOT read about lesser known candidates from lesser known parties even on websites that claim to be reactions to mainstream media. I once posted a message on a local "progressive" website about Jonathan Tasini not being mentioned as a Senate candidate (now running for Congress in a primary against Charlie Rangel) and was told that Tasini was not mentioned because the "blogmaster" deemed him unimportant. That's just sad.
My voting will be wildly different than in years past. Third-party candidates will be moving to my forefront.
Leave A Comment
Respond on Your Blog
Create an Account
or
Login
If you have a City Account you can not only post comments, but you can also respond to articles in your own City Blog. It's just another way to make your voice heard.