Gotham Gazette

The Place for New York Policy and politics

Opinion

Opinion

The Pragmatic Progressivism of Ritchie Torres


Rep. Ritchie Torres (photo: Jeff Reed/City Council)


As congressional representatives seek re-election this year, there is one member of Congress who doesn’t need to worry about having an opponent: Rep. Ritchie Torres. At the time of this writing, there is no word of a candidate circulating petitions to challenge Torres in this June’s Democratic primary. As political insiders well know, it is rare for an incumbent in New York not to have a challenge.

Many may have taken notice of Torres’s popularity in his congressional district, as is evident in this Data for Progress poll. According to the poll, Torres enjoys a 73% favorability rate in the 15th Congressional District.

The rise of Ritchie Torres is one that I foresaw in these pages some years ago. I believe the rest of the country will continue to share our New York experience of Torres as a thoughtful legislator who has an uncanny ability to dig through complex policy issues and who articulates his positions clearly and concisely.

Equally fascinating to me has been Torres’ political philosophy since 2013, a posture of pragmatic progressivism. The “pragmatic” part of this posture has earned Torres the scorn of some other progressives.

Contemporary political progressivism in the United States has several variants. The current trajectory of progressive politics can perhaps be distinguished between those on the socialist left and those on the liberal left, who consider themselves more pragmatic.

By “pragmatic” I am not referring to the philosophical school of thought of pragmatism made popular by the likes of William James and John Dewey in the 20th century. Rather, I refer to “pragmatic” as an electoral and governing approach to politics that seeks to achieve social ends through the most practical means possible.

These two distinguishing markers of political progressivism–the socialist left and the liberal left– are hardly a recent phenomenon. Since the 20th century, progressive politics has been quite diverse. Interestingly enough, the socialist left once had a similar influence in New York and national politics to what it has now, though the impact is perhaps a bit greater now if we consider the number of socialists that are being elected to local office. The recent electoral successes of socialists are due to their intentional efforts to work within the Democratic Party instead of functioning as a third party as they did decades ago.

Perhaps the most prominent and influential socialist figure in 1930s electoral politics was Norman Thomas, a member of the Socialist Party of America. Thomas’ charm, charisma, and intellect helped to catapult the socialist agenda into the national political discourse.

Yet this socialist influence began to wane with the social progress achieved through FDR’s New Deal initiatives. What replaced it for the next few decades was the influence of the liberal left.

What has been deemed “liberal left” I call pragmatic progressivism. And it is in this wing of progressive politics that Ritchie Torres resides. Pragmatic progressives seek most of the same goals as other progressives: universal healthcare, adequate funding for education and housing, fair wages, among others. The “pragmatic” element in this type of progressivism acknowledges that to function, politics must maintain a healthy equilibrium between competing interests.

The key difference between the socialist left and pragmatic progressives lies in the paths they take to achieve progressive aims. Pragmatists assert that the attainment of progressive goals may entail negotiating with those competing interests that are at different points along the political spectrum. Therefore, pragmatists make no bones about the fact that they must work within an imperfect and indeed broken system full of people with different opinions and constituencies that make these negotiations necessary. Pragmatists see these negotiations as necessary for the work of progress.

If Norman Thomas was the face of the socialist politics that preceded current socialist movements, like the contemporary Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), then the theologian and ethicist Reinhold Niebuhr, in the same era, represented the pragmatic progressivism exemplified today by Ritchie Torres.

In the 1930s, Niebuhr was part of the Socialists of America party and even ran for office twice on their ballot. The realities of World War II and the social and economic impact of FDR’s New Deal changed his politics, leading him eventually to co-found New York’s Liberal Party and later the Union for Democratic Action, which eventually became the Americans for Democratic Action. Niebuhr understood that the seeking of political perfection was far from realistic; therefore the necessity to seek compromise. He believed that the idealism of the socialist left, as was evident by their propensity to clamor for pacifictic alternatives during World War II, was indeed an attempt to seek the perfect. Yet, Niebuhr would assert that the perfect can’t be the enemy of the very good.

Torres reflects in word and deed the type of progressive politics espoused by Niebuhr—seeking progressive goals by balancing realities of politics and governance. 

When have we seen Rep. Torres’ inclination toward this kind of pragmatic progressivism? Let’s take a look at his stance on the “Defund the Police” movement prominently espoused by those on the socialist left. Speaking to Jose Diaz-Balart on MSNBC last month, Torres said, “...any elected official who’s advocating for the abolition and/or even the defunding of police is out of touch with reality and should not be taken seriously.” Torres prefers to speak of a “reform the police” type of movement, one that acknowledges the necessity of policing for ensuring public safety while acknowledging also that there are structural deficiencies within police departments that need deep and sustained reform. Torres says, “What most New Yorkers want is not less policing or more police, but better policing — more accountable and transparent policing.”

Perhaps this stance of Torres’s points to his inclination to work within a broken system in order to seek necessary changes from within rather than seeking a total abolition of a system that doesn’t work for many, particularly for communities of color. Hence, Torres has developed positions and backed legislation that seek to attack root causes of crime like poverty and housing instability, and pursues policies to address them.

Torres’ position on the “Defund the Police” movement and his penchant for reforming systems from within deficient structures could perhaps be seen in a police reform bill fight in 2017, during his tenure in the New York City Council.

The 2017 Right to Know Act, a controversial and much-debated set of police reform bills, sought to deter police abuse and to ensure transparency in any interaction between an officer and an individual.

There were two bills in the Act, one introduced by then-City Council member and now Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso and the other introduced by Torres. After hearings and negotiations, Torres made changes to his bill.

The Reynoso bill was championed by many police reform advocates, earning the praise of Monifa Bandele, a spokesperson for a prominent coalition, since Reynoso’s bill would bring “transparency and accountability regarding searches during non-emergency policing encounters that have no legal basis other than a person’s supposed consent."

Of Torres’ bill, Bandele said: “This NYPD bill being advanced by Torres is neither the Right to Know Act nor a compromise, but political backroom dealing and a surrender of legislative independence to the NYPD and the Mayor.” Bandele’s statement reflected the sentiment of other reform advocates, who felt that the updated version of Torres’ police reform bill conceded too much to the NYPD.

Torres indeed negotiated particulars of the bill with NYPD representatives and the mayor’s office. But he insisted that any concessions made to the de Blasio administration would ensure the needed transparency in a number of interactions between police and individuals.

Torres earned the scorn of both police reform advocates and the police unions. History has shown that this type of criticism from both extremes is often the result of political decisions made by pragmatic progressives. Acknowledging the need for negotiations between disparate political interests and views in order to achieve progress on behalf of the citizenry never earns them friends at the extremes and most devoted parties, but does win them broad support among the more pragmatic general population.

Torres has done this again with his position on the status of Puerto Rico, siding for statehood for the Caribbean island, a position favored by conservatives on both the island and the mainland. A little over two weeks after winning his congressional race in a historically majority-Latino (and Puerto Rican) congressional district that was once represented by Herman Badillo, Torres penned an op-ed declaring his support for Puerto Rico statehood. His statehood stance can be succinctly captured by his declaration that “As Americans, we must speak out forcefully against the de jure disenfranchisement of our fellow citizens in Puerto Rico, for it represents a deep rot at the very core of American democracy, not to mention a manifestation of the very systemic racism against which millions have stood in protest.”

Using the lens of systemic racism to critique the current status of Puerto Rico is in essence utilizing a progressive principle (the fight against systemic racism and the acknowledgement of Puerto Rico’s colonial status) in order to stand on the side of statehood, a position long held by mostly conservatives in Puerto Rico.

This position places Torres on the opposite side of the issue from the other two Puerto Rican congressional representatives in New York City, Reps. Nydia Velázquez and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, both of whom have introduced the Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act of 2021. The bill seeks to give Puerto Ricans on the island the opportunity to finally determine their status through an elaborate process that would include publicly-financed elections and a convention with delegates elected by the Puerto Rican people. Torres believes that Puerto Ricans have already determined their will by a recent referendum in which voters selected statehood as their preferred option. 

While the police reform bill and Torres’ position on the status of Puerto Rico may cause some to question his progressive bona fides, it is also important to remember his championing of a myriad of progressive issues. For instance, Torres has introduced a bill that would require the Federal Home Loan Banks to drastically increase investments in affordable housing, community development, and small business lending. And of course, on the issue of public housing, few elected officials in New York have been as relentless and consistent on the need to revamp our public housing facilities through massive federal investment. More recently, Torres led a push, supported by Ocasio-Cortez, demanding that billions in funding be secured for public housing and rental assistance.

It is difficult to peg Torres solely on one end of even the progressive spectrum. Throughout his career as an elected official, Torres’ positions have reflected the thinking of a pragmatist who acknowledges the need to balance interests for the greater goal of achieving progressive values.

***
Eli Valentin is an adjunct professor at Iona College. He writes regular columns for Gotham Gazette, largely focused on Latino politics in New York City, and is a frequent guest political analyst at Univision NY. On Twitter @EliValentinNY.

***
Eli Valentin is a political analyst and author of the forthcoming book, Reinhold Niebuhr: A Political Life. On Twitter @EliValentinNY.

***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

We Should Celebrate New York State’s Birthday on April 20


 New York (photo: Governor's Office)


New Yorkers have a birthday of sorts coming up. On April 20, 1777, the Convention of Representatives of the State of New York, an ad hoc group of patriot leaders elected the previous year to guide New York’s Revolutionary War efforts and develop its first constitution, finished its work on that document.  

That act brought New York State into existence. 

It was a remarkable document, prepared on the fly by the group that had kept out of reach of British forces by fleeing from New York City (just before it was occupied by the British in 1776)  to White Plains, to Fishkill, and finally to Kingston where it completed its work on the document.

The work was done in such haste that the final version of the document included cross-outs and marginal corrections. There was no time to even make a clean copy before the document was read publicly for the first time by the convention’s secretary on April 22. He climbed atop a flour barrel outside the building where the group had met and read it aloud to Kingston citizens. Then, the new document was rushed off to the printer. 

The document declared that the convention, acting “in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, doth ordain and determine and declare that no authority shall in any pretense whatever shall be exercised over the people or members of this State but such as shall be derived from and granted by them.”

In 1777, a document purporting to represent the consensus and will of the people was a startling, radical departure from the past. 

The original copy of the first constitution is preserved in the New York State Archives, and can be read online at the Yale Law School Avalon Project. William A. Polf’s 1777:  The Political Revolution and New York's First Constitution provides a good introduction. It is also described in Peter Galie’s Ordered Liberty: A Constitutional History of New York and in my book, The Spirit of New York: Defining Events in the Empire State's History.

Hastily-organized elections were held in the spring and summer and the first legislature assembled in Kingston in September 1777 and got to work. The fledgling government had to flee as British troops assaulted and burned Kingston on October 16. It soon re-assembled in Poughkeepsie and resumed work. By then, patriot forces had defeated British incursions from the west (at Oriskany) and the north (at Saratoga) and a minor incursion from the east (at Bennington). 

New York State was here to stay. 

Why should New Yorkers (and people beyond New York) be interested in the state’s birthday and its critical origin and survival year of 1777?  

Several reasons:

It is a key part of an inspiring against-the-odds story of determination and resilience. In early 1777, it was by no means certain that the rebellious colony of New York would survive and achieve independence along with a dozen other colonies. By the end of the year, New York had written a constitution, established a government, held elections, fended off invasions from three directions, and survived invasion and destruction of its capital.

It was unprecedented. The writers had some British and other European precedents, New York’s own experience, and political philosophers to draw on. But there was no such thing as a “state” when they began. Other rebellious colonies were still writing their own independence documents. The Articles of Confederation, creating a government framework to link the new states together, would not be created until later in 1777. 

It represented compromise and consensus. The writers had a number of disagreements and varying viewpoints and perspectives going into the process. But along the way they put aside their differences, compromised, and came together to develop a consensus document. That process is worthy of study now, when too often it seems difficult to reach agreement on divisive political issues.

It was concise. At about 5,000 words, it also included the Declaration of Independence as a preface. It outlined the powers of a two-house legislature (similar to what we still have today) and the governor (also similar in some ways to what we have now), provided for a secret ballot, and endorsed freedom of religion. There was a placeholder for the judiciary; that had to be fleshed out by the first legislature.

It was successful, flexible, and enduring. The first constitution proved to be a viable framework for years when New York grew remarkably fast. It endured without major changes until 1821. Even then, the structural changes were relatively modest. The new constitution streamlined the process for appointing state officials and strengthened the governor’s veto power.   

It left important work undone. The convention discussed abolishing the horrible practice of slavery but in the end did not. That had to await legislation in 1799 and 1817. It included restrictions on voting rights for men, which were gradually eased over ensuing decades, and denied women the right to vote, not rectified in New York until 1917. The constitution had no bill of rights other than protection of freedom of religion. The legislature enacted a bill of rights in 1787 and they were embodied in the 1821 constitutional revision.

It was influential. The New York constitution includes some of the principles that were embodied in the U.S. Constitution a decade later, 1787. New York led the way in a sense. That is not surprising because New York patriot Gouverneur Morris was one of the principal writers of the New York document and a decade later, then a delegate from Pennsylvania, he was also one of the writers of the U.S. Constitution. 

***
Bruce W. Dearstyne is a historian in Albany, NY. SUNY Press recently published the second edition of his book The Spirit of New York: Defining Events in the Empire State's History and will publish his next book The Crucible of Public Policy: New York Courts in the Progressive Era later this year.

***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Resilient Public Schools are Key to Our Children’s and Our City’s Future


The future of schools in NYC (photo: Michael Appleton/Mayoral Photography Office)


Two years after lockdown, we’re entering a new phase of the pandemic. Mask and vaccine mandates have been rolled back across the state, and we’re eager to return to some kind of ‘normal.’ We have a new mayor and a new City Council, being tested for the first time. And we’re at a crossroads: what lessons have we learned? How can we ensure that our city is resilient, not just in the face of another health crisis or a new variant, but universally?

I’m a working mom, and I think a lot about the effect these two years have had on my eight-year-old at such a formative time. Schools were hit hard by the pandemic, with shutdowns disrupting the lives of countless students, families, teachers, principals, and others. When Mayor Adams announced that schools would reopen in January after winter break and amid the Omicron wave, I was hesitant, as I’m sure many other parents were. But I recognized the importance of in-person learning. My partner and I took all of the precautions we could to ensure our child’s health and safety at school.

In February, I faced a moment every parent dreads—my child tested positive for COVID-19 after an exposure in their 28-person classroom. We were fortunate that they were vaccinated and only had a mild case, but at this moment of recovery and renewal, we must do more to safeguard our public school students in New York City.

We also must do more to safeguard their future. It can be difficult to see beyond our current moment, trying to safely emerge from this health crisis. But I also want my child to grow up happy and healthy in New York City, and have the option to live a long life here, perhaps raise children of their own someday.

The 2022 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, released last month, makes it clear that the progression of climate change is much worse than we thought. Our window to change course is closing fast. The pandemic also highlighted the connection between climate change and public health, with clinical research linking high COVID-19 death rates to long-term exposure to climate degradation, concentrated in low-income and environmental justice communities—primarily communities of color. This is an urgent moment to determine our children’s future.

One of the lessons we’ve learned in the past two years is that resiliency means strong infrastructure. In New York, that starts with our public buildings. New York City public schools are some of the biggest public climate polluters and account for one-quarter of all city-owned buildings. We also know that proper ventilation is one of the most important ways to minimize the spread of COVID-19. And beyond covid, poor air quality not only impacts student and staff health, but it can also undermine learning by negatively affecting student attendance, comfort, and performance.

The Climate Works for All coalition has developed a plan for Green, Healthy Schools. The solution is retrofitting our public schools, starting with upgrading HVAC systems while we are still fighting this pandemic. Now is the time to take institutional measures to prevent the spread of airborne diseases and protect our kids, today and in the future. We can tackle the multiple crises our city faces by retrofitting school buildings, while also reducing emissions, enhancing air quality, creating green career jobs, and fostering resilient communities across our city.

As a city, we’ve already committed to reduce emissions from New York City’s biggest buildings—40% by 2030 and 80% by 2050—through Local Law 97, passed in 2019. This work needs to happen, and public buildings can set an example. Why not start with public schools? Climate is a personal issue, and it won’t wait for us. This is why I do this work—to build a more sustainable New York for my family and our community.

Retrofitting K-12 schools and installing solar systems will cut energy use by 50%, enhance daily life and health in public schools, and support student performance, engagement, and classroom behavior. It will also allow the city to address long-term public health disparities in Black and brown communities—the same communities ravaged by the pandemic. In Mayor Adams’ economic recovery blueprint, he pledged to invest equitably in neighborhood infrastructure, including schools. This is a great place to start. But to do it properly, there must be a baseline of funding year to year.

New York City must take on the urgency of this moment by ensuring that our public funding goes to public infrastructure. Climate Works for All proposes an annual investment of at least $1.6 billion for the next eight years, which would ensure the health and safety of our school children and make good on the promise to retrofit our buildings while creating good jobs.

I know that being in school is good for my child’s mental health, but we must take care of our kids’ long-term physical health too. Mayor Adams can demonstrate true leadership in his first term by prioritizing upgrading HVAC systems in public schools, starting with those in environmental justice communities. Investing in resiliency now will shape the city’s recovery, give us long-term protection from new variants or whatever comes next, and set an example for our climate future and for our kids. 

***
Maritza Silva-Farrell is Executive Director of ALIGN NY, a climate and labor advocacy organization and a leader of the Climate Works for All coalition.
On Twitter @MaritzaSf & @ALIGNny.

***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.



Print Friendly and PDF

Editor's Choice


Gotham Gazette: New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act
New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act
Gotham Gazette: 
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures
Gotham Gazette: 
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives
Gotham Gazette: 
City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years