By Jared Chausow
By Katie Toth
By Elizabeth Flock
By Albert Samaha
By Anna Merlan
By Jon Campbell
By Jon Campbell
By Albert Samaha
Let's say the awful events of last month had taken place during those years, and let's say the law required Beame to leave office at the end of his term. What if he had requested a special dispensation so he could serve an additional three months? Imagine the case he might have made: a dire need to coordinate relief efforts and the replacement of 100,000 lost jobs, not to mention the enormous task of rebuilding a financial hub that might otherwise relocate, plunging the city into a lasting depression. What would the reaction of legislators, commentators, and good-government groups have been?
Maybe the same as it was when Rudy Giuliani made that proposalbut maybe not. If Beame had been mayor when the twin towers went down, most people would have argued about whether he was up to the task of leading the recovery. But the talk about disrupting the democratic process would have been more muted, and the question would have been decided after a sober (if politically charged) debate. Of course, there can be no sober debate where Giuliani is concerned.
The mayor's authoritarian instincts are well known, and as with all strongmen, no one can trust him to get out of the way. The mischief he could perform during those fateful three months would rebound against his successor, not to mention the city. And then there's the impact on communities of color. Giuliani has essentially disenfranchised them by excluding them from city government, an act so disgraceful that it qualifies as bigotry. Though no mainstream commentator has called Giuliani a bigot, that's precisely what many of the city's black and Latino residents would sayquite correctly. He leaves the city more divided along racial lines than at any time in its modern history. Even more than his leadership during the recent emergency, that's what Giuliani will be remembered for.
This record is why the mayor had so little credibility when he announced his willingness to stick around. Giuliani created the conditions that made his plan unworkable. He never explained in any detail why his request was rational. His basic thrust was to imply that no one else could do the job, a variation of "après moi le déluge" that could only resonate with people's well-founded suspicions. He tried to get his way by blackmail, and his critics reacted accordingly. They resisted the hijacking of their city. But were they right?
My gut says the potential gain from three more months of Rudy would not outweigh the pain. But I can't make a clear judgment, because I haven't been given all the facts. None of the candidates has helped in this respect. Mark Green never laid out the case for keeping Giuliani around, and Freddy Ferrer framed his refusal to consider the idea as a defense of "the rule of law." Never mind that the state constitution gives the legislature "the power and immediate duty" to amend the rules in order to assure the continuance of effective government "in periods of emergency caused by enemy attack." There was no issue here of violating the law, only the question of whether this departure from tradition was warrantedand we never got to debate that point.
Instead, the issue was resisting Rudy. Ferrer was able to present himself as the candidate with cojones, while Green found himself outflanked on the macho front. He had "folded," to use Ed Koch's snickering term, or "melted," as one teachers' union delegate put it, explaining why his colleagues voted to endorse Ferrer. In the Observer's front-page cartoon, Mark cowered while Freddy roared at Rudy. Green's failure to buttress his reasoning only made him look weaker. He seemed guilty of what graffiti writers call "jocking"showing too much respect for a superior malewhile Freddy looked like he was wearing the strap.
The media aided this obfuscating image game by failing to discuss the issue on its merits. Except for a few op-ed pieces, there was no deliberate pro and con. The Times simply declared Rudy's proposal a "very bad idea." A statement by good-government groups urging the legislature not to comply with Giuliani's request focused on the threat to "basic notions of democracy and home rule." It never broached the question of necessity. That left the issue to be decided in the partisan clamor of politics, and here the black and Latino legislative caucuses played a major role in making the plan unfeasible. It's understandable why they behaved as they did, but their real problem was with Giuliani. They might have had more confidence in a mayor they could trustand the candidates might have reacted in a way that didn't turn a practical question into a test of courage.