Gotham Gazette

The Place for New York Policy and politics

Topics

Topics

The Remarkable Victory


Mayor-elect Michael Bloomberg's victory was, in every way, on every level, remarkable. It was an historical first: no Republican has ever succeeded a Republican in the mayor's office, in the city's history. No Republican has been elected mayor more than once every generation.

No mayor has ever inherited such a crisis, at any time, anywhere. The issues of financial solvency, and security, and preparedness, and disaster relief, must not blot out the very real issues of running the day to day affairs of this incredible city, the place eight million of us call home. And so the thrill of victory came quietly, and passed quickly, and the Bloomberg campaign began the transition.

That sentiment is appropriate, and those preparations are crucial. But history has been made, nonetheless, and while it is too soon to tell if the Bloomberg victory represents a major change in the way New York City elects its leaders, it may be useful to revisit some assumptions, some of which I put forth in this space over the past year, and take a look at what may have changed when Mike Bloomberg declared victory.

1. "Endorsements matter, or not, depending on who you talk to."
The endorsement by Mayor Rudy Giuliani was a crucial component of the Bloomberg victory. While the endorsement alone would not have guaranteed anyone the victory, I think it is safe to say Bloomberg could not have won without it. This is a momentous shift in electoral politics.

Endorsements have long been seen as a way to increase a candidate's stature, or to deliver one small, loyal block of voters, or to decorate a campaign with a well-known name. Never before has an endorsement had the effect of cha nging the dynamics of a campaign the way this endorsement did. When Rudy Giuliani came out with his public support of Michael Bloomberg, New Yorkers stopped and listened. They took his advice at face value, and believed him when he said that Bloomberg would be the best choice to lead the city. This level of trust and response, while clearly a mark of the respect people have for Mayor Giuliani during this crisis, is still a remarkable development.

2. "Democrats vote for Democrats, Republicans vote for Republicans."
If you want to find out how someone is going to vote, and you can only ask her one question, what do you ask? Even more effective than asking them whom they are going to vote for (sometimes people don't remember the candidates' names) is to ask their party registration. People vote their party. And in New York, where registration is roughly five to one Democratic, that means people vote for Democrats.

It is true that people cross party lines, and that was the case in 1997 when Mayor Giuliani was re-elected with an overwhelming majority, and it was the case in 1993 when he narrowly edged out the sitting mayor, David Dinkins. (Michael Bloomberg's victory was definitive when compared to the close race Giuliani won in 1993).

But the fact that people have voted a Republican into office before, and recently, only makes it more remarkable that it would happen again. An exception to the rule must have a powerful force of persuasion behind it, and that persuasion has to be greater, not less, each time the exception is made.

On election night, as I watched the returns come in, I saw in every down-ballot race (other than mayor) what I would have expected: Democrats elected with sixty, or seventy percent of the vote, while Republicans (if there were any Republicans running) garnering a vote percentage in the teens, sometimes breaking twenty percent. This is a Democratic town, with Democratic elected officials, and Democratic organizations, and Democratic voters. The most competitive elections are Democratic primaries. The prohibitive frontrunner in every election is the Democratic nominee.

To run as a Republican in New York is to start off with a perception problem: it seems that no one with any reasonable ambition of public service would run as a Republican if he or she bothered to glance at the city's voter registration numbers. Michael Bloomberg knew this, and his decision to run as a Republican was a strategic one: a straight shot at the nomination on the plus side, but on the downside, having to overcome a tremendous party registration deficit and a considerable perception problem.

Bloomberg was able to neutralize the perception problem by running a professional campaign with a reasonable message and a broad-based coalition of support. He was not a zealot, and he was running to win. But that still did not mean a level playing field.

Before he could convince voters that he was the right choice, he had to convince them to put aside their loyalty to their party's nominee. The fact that he was able to do so is a testament not only to the strength of his campaign, but to the weakness of the Democratic machine. Whether this is a sign of things to come, or simply an anomaly present in the last three elections, may not be clear even now. But when major shifts in political behavior are recognized, they are usually acknowledged to have started long before. A pattern can't be identified until it is well established. New York may not be headed for Republican political dominance. But the weight of Democratic dominance has shifted, maybe for a long time to come.

3. "Negative campaigning is an effective political tool."
I realized that Michael Bloomberg was going to win the mayor's race about a week before the election. I was sitting at home, watching television, and a political ad came on. The fact that it was a negative ad didn't surprise me, and even the tone and content, with its grainy photographs and lurid accusations, didn't in and of itself catch me off guard. But the realization that it was coming from Mark Green, aimed at Mike Bloomberg, shocked me into full attention.

Negative advertising is a strategic choice. It is based on the widely held and often proven assumption that negative ads, even though they may not be liked, are very effective. People may not enjoy being told about a candidate's bad decisions, or bad judgement, or bad behavior, but they process the information and carry it with them into the voting booth. Negative advertising may not be very nice, but it works.

But it is also a strategy, and it can be a risky one: turning voters against your opponent, at the risk of turning voters off altogether, or worse, turning them against you as well. Which is why I was so shocked to see the Green camp taking such a risk. Only a campaign that is seeing their numbers drop, and their opponent's numbers rise, would consider making such a costly political move. The realization that the Green camp was behind, and desperate, and launching their last-ditch effort was astounding.

Campaigning is about making choices. Both candidates in this campaign had choices available to them, and it would be true to say both campaigns engaged in negative advertising. But all negative ads are not created equal, and voters are well able to tell the difference.

Any communication that focuses on your opponent can be defined as negative. A negative ad can draw a contrast, or raise a question, or present information. To be effective, a negative ad has to be true, meticulously well documented, relevant, timely, and it must be seen as fair play. Bloomberg ran several negative ads, one using Mark Green's own ill-considered words against him, and another using the critical words of prominent Democrats. The ads were well done, they were effective, and clearly they hit their mark.

The ads that Mark Green ran in the final days of this campaign were ad hominem attacks against Michael Bloomberg the man, not the candidate. They were unfocused and vague even in the viciousness of the accusations they made. They were completely out of step with a city and a citizenry trying to focus on healing and unity, and their greatest sin, in my opinion, they looked and sounded as though they had been slapped together in a few hours (which they probably had). These particular ads were new to me, but I recognized them at once: they are the political equivalent of a campaign's dying breath.

Whether there was a time when such tactics would have allowed Mark Green to regain his once "insurmountable" lead, I do not know. But I have a feeling that time is gone, at least for a while. We realize right now, in a way we may not have before, that while cynicism can be healthy, disenchantment can be dangerous. And there is a difference. And that difference is important.

Bloomberg's campaign victory pales in comparison to what it precedes. Michael Bloomberg will be our new mayor, in a time and a place that no one has ever seen, and few could have imagined. And while that will, and should be our focus in the days ahead, it is still true to say that his campaign represented one of the biggest upsets in New York political history.

Susan Reefer is a Republican pollster and media strategist. She is based in New York City.

10-Digit Dialing


In recent years, exploding demand for phone numbers has pushed the classic Manhattan 212 area code to its limits, our desire for mobility requiring new area codes for cell phones so that we can be reached anywhere, anytime. Enter 917, 646 and 347 - and the era of 10-digit dialing.

Normally, in places where more than one area code is used for the same geographic area, the Federal Communications Commission requires that callers dial area codes for local calls. So, if the FCC has its way, you will now have to dial 212 to call your next-door neighbor in Manhattan. Ten-digit dialing will also require telephone systems to be reprogrammed, including emergency 911 computers and private security systems.

It is that fact that the government of New York and an array of state agencies are using in a petition to delay 10-digit dialing here for another 14 months. Reprogramming errors, they say, could lead to problems with emergency services, which would be undesirable in this uncertain time for New York.

More generally, New York believes that 10-digit dialing is costly, complicated and unnecessary. Senior citizens, children, sight-impaired and other New Yorkers with disabilities may face challenges adopting to the new system. 10-digit dialing would require a huge consumer education campaign to educate people about how to make calls with the new system and updating phone books to reflect the changes.

The FCC counters that 10-digit dialing is one way to promote competition in telecommunications markets, which is one of their priorities. Forcing people to dial area codes only for new numbers, the FCC argues, is unfair discrimination against new telecommunication companies. For example, currently, you have to dial the area codes for 646, 917 and 347 but not for 212 or 718 (if you are calling from within these area codes). The FCC says that this amounts to an anti-competitive practice designed to keep the established phone companies in control of the 212 and 718 numbers.

In response, New York agencies have introduced a series of policies that they hope will foster competition in the telecommunications market without the hassle of 10-digit dialing. These programs include telephone number portability (you can take your phone number with you when you move) and telephone number pooling (numbers no longer in use with be redistributed equally to all telecommunications companies).

It is not clear whether New York's request for delay of 10-digit dialing is really a response to the World Trade Center attacks, or merely an excuse for New York to put off the implementation of a federal plan that it has resisted since the beginning. While New York telecommunication companies do have costly challenges ahead in rebuilding infrastructure damaged in the attacks, there may not be sufficient reason to delay 10-digit calling. There has been much sympathy from Washington following the attacks, however, the FCC may prefer to get back to business as usual as so many are trying to do in these difficult times.

In the end, New Yorkers will have to adopt the federally mandated 10-digit dialing plan in the next few years. That is, unless there are some creative legal tactics that New York has not tried yet. So, get out your digits.

Next Month: Cable Crisis
Waiting weeks to have your cable TV installed? Spending hours on the phone waiting to speak with your cable company? Would you nominate your cable company as the Worst Corporate Citizen of New York? Did the city do anything to help? Tell me your story. Please e-mail with subject head "Cable Complaints" to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Thank you. Laura Forlano is a doctoral student studying communication technology policy at Columbia University.

Outlook From City Hall


If Michael Bloomberg were still a private citizen, we might expect him to step in to help the arts in this moment of looming budgetary cutbacks. He gave away $300 million in the past five years, and sat on the boards of the Metropolitan Museum of Art and Lincoln Center. Now that the philanthropist is in City Hall, what can we expect for the arts?

The Mayor's inaugural speech was a marvel of can-do optimism laced with hard-nosed business speak: he singled out the arts in a list of the city's economic strengths, and then, in nearly the same breath, hinted that cultural organizations will have to be put on the back burner, for now. "We will bring new life to our waterfront and stimulate new investment in housing, schools," he promised, "and when we can afford them, the world's best cultural and athletic facilities." His logic is irrefutable: Most people would not want to put the arts before homeless people or schoolchildren. Yet, arts organizations are extremely vulnerable to cuts; and their weakness has ripple effects throughout the city.

"I would very much like to see a stable year for the arts community in terms of funding," says Norma Munn, chair of the New York City Arts Coalition. "I understand that the budget is tough. But I am also cognizant of the fact that the last time we had a 20 percent reduction, in 1992, it took six or seven years for the arts to recover. This may be one cut that is self-defeating."

Perhaps the best news is that Bloomberg has already gained a reputation as a pragmatist; surely he understands that the arts are one of the city's major engines, intimately connected to the spiritual and financial well-being of our communities. High up on Bloomberg's to-do list has to be getting the tourists to come back to New York. In January, tourism was still down almost 15 percent, and analysts do not expect it to rebound to pre-Sept. 11 levels until 2003. European tourists in particular are staying away, hurting museums like the Met and the Guggenheim, which rely heavily on their patronage. Nathan Leventhal, the former head of Lincoln Center and a long-time arts advocate, is now part of Bloomberg's team. He has had direct experience with an organization that relies heavily on tourism, and we can expect that he will pay attention to how the drops in tourism affect the arts.

Another key appointment, of Patricia Harris as deputy mayor, is being warmly received in the arts community. Virginia Louloudes, of Alliance of Resident Theatres/New York , told me that she is "thrilled" with Bloomberg's appointment of Harris, who has a background in philanthropy, the arts, and business. Harris ran the Art Commission under Mayor Koch and then oversaw Bloomberg L.P.'s corporate communications and philanthropic operations. As deputy mayor, she will oversee the Department of Cultural Affairs.

Louloudes is also pleased with the choice of a theater person, Kate Levin, as the new cultural commissioner. Levin, a CUNY professor of Renaissance drama and a director of rarely done plays of that period, has worked for the city before, as well as for the Brooklyn Academy of Music. "We are going to be looking to the mayor, deputy mayor, and the commissioner for leadership," Louloudes says, "to make the case that the arts attract business to the city. Corporations and the arts need each other more than ever now."

Ted Berger, executive director of the New York Foundation for the Arts, echoes Louloudes. "Given the mayor's philanthropist background, he has an interesting opportunity to challenge the private sector--in particular we need the private sector to get more involved with a broader range of organizations, to look at what's happening in neighborhoods, smaller arts organizations, as well as big institutions."

Last fall, the New York Foundation for the Arts released "Culture Counts," a comprehensive study of New York's arts community. From interviews and information gathered in the report, it became clear that the Department of Cultural Affairs--which turns 30 this year--is in need of reform. Subject to cuts under the Giuliani administration, the agency now finds itself desperately understaffed. "Culture Counts" revealed that, among many arts organizations, there are perceptions of unfairness in the department's funding practices. Better explanations of policy would go a long way toward counteracting perceptions of bias; and, as Ted Berger suggests, prompt payment of grants would also be a great improvement.

The best news: arts organizations will not have to worry about free-speech issues while they try to pay the rent. Bloomberg doesn't have a conservative constituency to answer to, and he is not likely to follow in Giuliani's footsteps and wage battles against "obscene" art.

THE BROADWAY SHUFFLE

In the 1920s, Mayor Jimmy Walker patronized Broadway theater--and the speakeasies that sprang up along the Great White Way--with such regularity and zeal that he was known as "The Night Mayor of New York." Broadway hasn't had such a good friend in City Hall since, though Giuliani came close in his publicity efforts for Broadway post-9/11. Governor Pataki followed Giuliani's lead by teaming with the League of American Theatres and Producers in an ambitious promotion for Broadway--the "Season of Savings" campaign, which was unveiled in early January. With Broadway ticket sales still down as much as 15 percent at the end of the month, Mayor Bloomberg has stepped up to the plate to pitch for "New York Loves America: The Broadway Tour." We're back to the 1920s, when Broadway shows toured around the country before opening in New York: this particular tour, a musical revue to 14 cities beginning January 26, is designed to recognize American's support for New York City, post-9/11--and to ensure their continued patronage.

The nonprofit theater sector has not benefited from this kind of government attention or largesse. The city's 400 nonprofits--which include major institutions like Lincoln Center and the Roundabout--have lost millions in the months since September. While there are some bitter feelings off-Broadway, most nonprofits cannot afford to wait for help, and have begun to organize and promote themselves.

In Mayor Walker's day, all theater was essentially Broadway, and it offered hundreds of plays a year, by talents as diverse as Noel Coward, Gertrude Stein, George Kaufman, and Mae West. Today, much of the experimentation and new work is nurtured in the nonprofit sector. As arts organizations continue to deal with the financial hardships caused by drops in tourism and funding, it would behoove our new mayor to consider the well-being of all of the city's theaters--big and small, on Broadway and off.

 



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