Letter from the Editor

The Politics of No Politics

In L.A. at the moment, the mayor’s race is all about potholes and traffic. In a city marked by vast and growing inequalities, one candidate moved to the front of the pack with a call for synchronized stoplights. The race may indeed become livelier in the May runoff, but thus far the five candidates have inspired no one with their visions of a better city.

Here in NYC, local politics has long been a much more exciting sport. Mayors become at the very least household names, often celebrities, and—yikes!—sometimes potential candidates for president. Mayor Bloomberg, however, recently vowed to a Crain’s breakfast forum that nothing he does is “political.” His stands on behalf of both Wal-Mart and a publicly funded Jets stadium, he told the gathered businessmen, are based on his principles alone—and not on what others want. On these particular issues, he may not be right, but at least he’s accurate.

In general, one may think that being “political” is indeed a large part of a politician’s job, but this mayor clearly holds no brief for the fine art of compromise. Bloomberg, to be sure, didn’t get to where he is by letting others boss him around. Spirited debate is nevertheless the essence of democracy. Yet when Assemblywoman Deborah Glick criticized the Mayor for implying that anyone who opposes the Olympics development scheme “doesn’t have New York’s interest at heart,” the mayor’s office responded with a typically dismissive comment. Glick, a Bloomberg spokeswoman said, belonged to the tradition of “naysayers like the ones who opposed the creation of Central Park.” Personally, I would have no idea how to respond to such a ludicrous comment.

And that, unfortunately, is the point. In a speechless city, nobody protests, makes a fuss, disrupts traffic. Stuff gets done only on “principle.” The people at the top make decisions, everyone else follows. It’s not democratic, but at least the stoplights are synchronized.

—T. Hamm