January 27, 2003

THE LINDSAY FACTOR.

By James Eugene*

I was recently struck by the machinations of our fair city's billionaire Mayor. The praise for his first year in office has been generous and possibly justified, although time will really tell. Of course, I worry that at times he loathes making difficult, unpopular choices. Ed Koch had to make these choices for years, and even Mayor Prosecutor needed to make these choices in his early years before he overloaded the budget with new programs while cutting taxes without any thought (and thus creating some of the fiscal mess New York City current faces). Mayor Billionaire seems to avoid this stuff as best he can.

However, I digress from my point, which is the Lindsay factor. No, not the fact that both Lindsay and Mayor Billionaire enjoy looking like the knight in shining armor. Even if this is true, Lindsay had far more charisma than Mayor Billionaire. And no, it's not just that Mayor Billionaire seems just as liberal as Mayor Lindsay. (I happen to think Mayor Billionaire is governing in a more liberal fashion than even David Dinkins… but then again, the words "Dinkins" and "govern" should never be used in the same sentence.) My main question is will Mayor Billionaire always be a Republican or will he switch his registration back to Democrat?

You laugh, but I am not so sure Mayor Billionaire will remain a Republican. Let's look at the current situation.

We have a mayor who admits that he switched parties simply because he felt it would be easier to get him into the November general election. And he was right.

As long as George Pataki is Governor, Mayor Billionaire will not switch party allegiances. After all, it would be illogical for him to do so because the Albany math does not work (and Mayor Billionaire, like all mayors, does know how to count, especially when it comes to money in the form of State aid). With a Republican State Senate and a Republican governor, why change and ignore the main powers that control up there? Sure, Sheldon Silver would be happy with the change, but the last time I checked two still outnumbers one.

But let's look at another situation. Let's assume Mayor Billionaire wins re-election. Let's also assume that George Pataki loses to a Democratic when he runs for a fourth term (and Pataki is quickly beginning to be stuck with the "fatigue" factor that Mario Cuomo faced in '94) or let's just assume that Pataki does not run and New York gets a Democratic governor. If this occurs, the math in Albany is reversed. With the Governor a Democrat and the State Assembly Democratic, Democratic power trumps Republican power two to one. Then we might all watch Mayor Billionaire switch back to his Democratic roots (welcome home brother, and can you spare a billion).

Or let's look at another scenario in six years. Mayor Billionaire decides that he might want to move up… Maybe Senator Mrs. President (I just can't bring myself to use her last name) is running for President and that Senate seat looks like it might come open or some other higher office looks appealing (maybe a Cabinet position in a Democratic presidency). But the prize might be easier to obtain if Mayor Billionaire, Republican, were Mayor Billionaire, Democrat. Silly you say. Well hasn't Mayor Billionaire done it already?

And that is why I call this the Lindsay factor. Remember Lindsay - that sophisticated, suave guy - won in 1965 as a Republican but was too liberal for his party. He loses the 1969 Republican primary to (I am dating myself here) John Marchi and runs on the Liberal line against Marchi and (my memory is really straining here) conservative Democrat Mario Procaccino. Liberal Party candidate Lindsay, despite being betrayed by his party, wins as Procaccino and Marchi split the conservative vote and we all cheer as the Mets win the World Series.

So, then does Lindsay have party loyalty to the Republicans… hell no and why should he? He changes affiliation in 1971 and becomes a Democrat. And then what does he do? He runs for President in 1972, as a Democrat. Afterall, he was about to be run out of town, he couldn't run for Governor (Rocky had that seat) and he needed to try for something. He was never going to win on the Republican Presidential line with Nixon there and him so liberal (sound like a familiar reason to switch?). You already know he didn't win the Presidency, but in truth, he never even had a chance. Ironically, he still had great national exposure and was considered for many years one of the most charismatic political figures in America.

There is one main difference between the party hopping of Lindsay and Mayor Billionaire. Mayor Billionaire's switch landed him in Gracie Mansion. Lindsay's party switch left him without a party, never really being embraced by the Democrats and scorned by the Republicans. After his mayoralty, he was politically dead. Through a series of unfortunate breaks, he also suffered financial difficulties later in life.

However, I think Mayor Billionaire has one thing that would make a second switch easier and more fortuitous for him. No, not charisma. Mayor Billionaire has something better than charisma. Money. Bill Clinton already proved that the Democratic Party could be bought. George W. Bush has proved that the Republicans can take a sale to a whole new level (as we still can't find Osama Bin Laden and prepare for a war because Exxon/Mobil and a ton of other oil companies like the idea, and trust me… do you honestly believe that Iraq being in our control will lead to an oil glut… let's get real). Mayor Billionaire already spread a lot of money around after he switched allegiances to run for Mayor as a Republican, and Mayor Billionaire could buy a second switch just like he bought the first.

So you read it here first. Around June in 2007, Mayor Billionaire… Democrat.

AND WHILE WE'RE AT IT, I LOVE TALKING A LITTLE HISTORY.

Ironically, Lindsay's legacy in New York City became the first fiscal crisis that came home to roost under his successor, Abraham Beame, the man whom Lindsay beat in the 1965 election. Beame got the initial blame for the crisis, but then it became clear that the problems ran much deeper and had existed for decades. Beame still took the blame, but his true problem was that he was so clueless about how to get out of the crisis that he was the pre-cursor to Dinkins, a nice man, but a pitiful administrator. Even more amazing though is that Lindsay established some of the procedures for efficient management in his Administration, including the use of… computers, Mayor Billionaire's specialty.

So is Mayor Billionaire like Beame or Lindsay or both?

I ask this because I still do not have comfort with Mayor Billionaire's overall economic feel for urban economics. His willingness to raise taxes scares me. Jersey City, Westchester, Long Island and parts beyond are still there, ready to pilfer. (Did you know that the State of Virginia holds an annual reception in New York City for businesses thinking of relocating? At the meeting, often attended by the governor of Virginia, Virginia brags about the businesses that have relocated from New York.) But tax increases still remain a possibility. And that makes him like Lindsay. And his reluctance to hammer away at the City budget… that was Beame's undoing.

The Mayor needs to realize that businesses cannot vote in the booth, so they vote with their feet, and this voting takes place over time. New York City has bled… sometimes a little at a time, sometimes a lot. That bleeding had decreased in recent years and some credit for that goes to Mayor Prosecutor. (Yes, I am complimenting Mayor Prosecutor… mark the date and time.)

Now it is nice to talk about corporate responsibility, but that does not keep a headquarters in Manhattan. And Mayor Billionaire scares me because I have yet to feel that he understands the full weight of this. Remember Lindsay looked dynamic and great early on. He even had a great advertising line before the "I LOVE NY" campaign… remember "FUN CITY." But things soured over time. I know Mayor Billionaire has to deal with the Mayor Prosecutor fiscal mess, but will he make the mess worse? Will he take the fiscal crisis that he has inherited from Mayor Prosecutor and institutionalize it by making New York City a higher cost place to do business?

And why do I feel as if I am the only one saying these things?

FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE REALLY GOVERNMENT JUNKIES (AND BECAUSE YOU SUBSCRIBE TO THIS SERVICE WE KNOW THAT MEANS YOU)…

For those of you interested in the nuts and bolts of the first fiscal crisis, two books are required reading: Charles Morris, THE COST OF GOOD INTENTIONS, and Ken Auletta, THE STREETS WERE PAVED WITH GOLD. Morris' book is more academically rigorous, and it is interesting to note as he criticizes and praises Lindsay in the book that he was a Lindsay Administration official. Auletta's book hits the same points and is more entertaining but less statistically detailed. And no, I am not Charles Morris, although I greatly admire his book.

And for those of you who really want to be useful… send 51 copies of each to each City Council member.

* James Eugene is the pseudonym of a veteran of NYC government affairs. Inside The Big Apple will appear exclusively on the Empire Page. If you want to send tips or column ideas to James Eugene, email them to jameseugene@empirepage.com.