The case of Cynthia Nixon, who is challenging Democratic incumbent Andrew Cuomo for the governorship of the state of New York, provides a good window on two different ways of viewing primary elections in the US. The party establishment would prefer to have uncontested primaries so that their chosen candidates can focus on the general election, even if the candidates are like Cuomo who are Wall Street friendly and ideologically center-right. In fact, that is precisely the type of candidate that the Democratic party wants. They also worry that a tightly fought primary race will damage their chances of winning in the general election and so they throw their weight against the challengers, even if the challengers are more representative of the constituencies that party claims to represent.
But what the Nixon candidacy shows is that having strong progressive challengers can, even if they lose, make a really lousy candidate like Cuomo somewhat better by forcing him to take stands in favor of things that he used to oppose or might prefer to avoid discussing altogether.
As governor she would: address racial and economic inequality and empower people in their communities; increase taxes on the super-wealthy to pay for it; decriminalize marijuana possession as one of many steps towards emptying out prisons; extend rights for undocumented immigrants; increase protections for LGBTQ people; invest in public education; toughen rent laws and combat gentrification; fight corruption and end the overweening influence of corporate money in politics.
The list may verge on the predictable, but long before she gets to the polling stations it is already having an impact. A discernible pattern has emerged – dubbed the “Cynthia effect” by pundits – whereby she proposes a new leftist policy one day and Cuomo responds with his own version of it the next.
You see that with marijuana, where the sitting governor resolutely opposed legalisation until Nixon launched her campaign and then within weeks switched to supporting it. He passively accommodated the bizarre situation whereby seven Democratic state senators side with the Republicans, maintaining a conservative grip on state government, until Nixon declared her run – and then he moved swiftly to reunite the party. He opposed giving the right to vote to 40,000 people with criminal convictions, then did a U-turn once Nixon was in the race.
Cuomo’s kneejerk reactions to Nixon’s goading should not be confused with political weakness – the wily and cunning incumbent is very far from conceding defeat. But the responses do suggest signs that we now have game on.
This is the aftermath of the Bernie Sanders phenomenon. Progressive candidates are running everywhere, challenging the party establishment and its preferred candidates and forcing them to the left.
Eh? It (Ms Nixon’s candidacy, in this case) might cause the loathesome arsehole to say this-or-that, but it does not force the arsehole to do anything. Recall two of the critical “laws” of politics (in no particular order): (1) Politicians lie; and (2) Follow the money!
Plus the less cynical point that, perhaps with exceptions, an individual politician cannot do much on their own. Others need to join in, almost invariably, in a compromise. (Compromising need not be a bad thing.)
@blf:
I’m generally with you, but there’s also Overton Window-shift. Yes, Cuomo is likely to forget a good many of these promises after the election (win or lose), but seeing the sitting governor take positions like the decriminalization and/or legalization of marijuana affects how extreme the whack-a-loon right wingers seem. The media is too stupidly cowed to challenge candidates on good ideas that aren’t currently endorsed by the platforms of one of the two parties, but Cuomo gives them the “permission” that they (unfortunately) seek.
Anyway, yes. Cuomo, I’m sure, doesn’t take these statements seriously, and you’re also right that the money will dictate his policies. But I’m still of the opinion that this is a good thing. I mean, even if he stands by his decriminalization policy only because newly legal corporations shower money on him, well, without political movement we wouldn’t have those corporations in the first place, and I prefer the powerful doing good things for bad reasons than bad things for any reason.
#1
Simply being forced to say lefty things in the first place is itself a leftward change, and when it comes time for action, the fact that he has said them on record means he is under slightly more pressure to do those things than if he had never said them at all.
I agree with Holms. Most major change begins with hypocrisy, when major politicians feel obliged to say things they do not really believe just because their constituents have moved ahead of them. A new generation then grows up hearing the new sentiment as the norm and expects it to drive policy. During the period of transition, it is up to us to constantly remind the hypocritical politicians of their words so that they cannot completely renege.