Addicted to Garbage
"Albany, garbage addict": Alice Green released her platform yesterday. From the Times Union article:
#1) Voters don't like being told what is wrong with them. Welcome to mass democracy 101: don't insult the voters. No one wants to hear that they are stupid or closed-minded or bigoted or selfish. No one want to hear that they are a garbage addict and if they do want to hear it, they were already going to vote for you anyway. At least she said Albany was a garbage addict and not "the people of Albany," but still. Net gain: negative.
#2) It unintentionally makes Jennings' plan sound really appealing. The landfill has become a cash cow? It has raised tens of millions of dollars? And this has covered defecits in the budget? Sounds like we should build more of them! Obviously, Green didn't mean it this way, but that's how the average reader is going to interpret it. Net gain: very negative.
Here's a rewrite of the quote that would have worked much better:
Whatever the merits of the Green candidacy, it is obvious that the Green campaign is being run by a bunch of amateurs. That's too bad. Although I'm pretty sure Jennings would whip her in a fair fight, this has become much a joke. Running a sloppy campaign like this is a death knell against a seasoned pro like the Tanman. He's not my favorite, but I guarantee you his political advisors would never let him come off in a platform interview the way Green did yesterday. Sure, it's subtle. But it's still a disaster.
And voters are smarter than you think. You might respond by saying something like, "It's just one silly quote, Matt. No one actually cares if Green puts her foot in her mouth politically in one interview." I disagree. It sends the signal that she's a political lightweight. Sure, the Tanman is fake and moderately hackish, but people know that he's also ruthless and cunning. Whether you agree with his policies or not, no one doubts that he has the political skills to win the tough battles. A mayor who represents your policy positions is still worthless if he/she is politically ineffective. I may not always agree with Jennings, but he usually gets his way. And that counts for a lot when you know the mayor will be dealing with all sorts of tricky political situations - the thicket of interests in city politics can crush you if you aren't careful. There are also the situations that pit Albany's collective interests against other locales in the state. Would you really want Alice Green sitting down with Pataki and Silver and Bruno to try to extract state money for Albany? Me neither.
P.S. What kind of newspaper informs the readers that a candidate has released their platform, but doesn't go on to describe the platform in any detail? It's like the TU wants you to think that Green Party candidates only put environmental issues in their platforms...
"The solution to our city's waste crisis is not to turn the landfill into a cash cow like Jennings has done to raise tens of millions of dollars to cover annual deficits in the city budget. Instead, Albany has become a garbage addict," Green stated.
That's a poor statement, politically speaking, because:#1) Voters don't like being told what is wrong with them. Welcome to mass democracy 101: don't insult the voters. No one wants to hear that they are stupid or closed-minded or bigoted or selfish. No one want to hear that they are a garbage addict and if they do want to hear it, they were already going to vote for you anyway. At least she said Albany was a garbage addict and not "the people of Albany," but still. Net gain: negative.
#2) It unintentionally makes Jennings' plan sound really appealing. The landfill has become a cash cow? It has raised tens of millions of dollars? And this has covered defecits in the budget? Sounds like we should build more of them! Obviously, Green didn't mean it this way, but that's how the average reader is going to interpret it. Net gain: very negative.
Here's a rewrite of the quote that would have worked much better:
"Mayor Jennings has ignored this city's waste crisis. Instead of trying to reduce the overall amout of garbage, he has simply looked for new places to pile it up. He just doesn't get it. When I am mayor, we will work toward solving this problem, not dumping it on our neighbors and children."
Not bad. I wrote that in 8 seconds. You'd think the Green campaign could do almost as good with a few hours work.Whatever the merits of the Green candidacy, it is obvious that the Green campaign is being run by a bunch of amateurs. That's too bad. Although I'm pretty sure Jennings would whip her in a fair fight, this has become much a joke. Running a sloppy campaign like this is a death knell against a seasoned pro like the Tanman. He's not my favorite, but I guarantee you his political advisors would never let him come off in a platform interview the way Green did yesterday. Sure, it's subtle. But it's still a disaster.
And voters are smarter than you think. You might respond by saying something like, "It's just one silly quote, Matt. No one actually cares if Green puts her foot in her mouth politically in one interview." I disagree. It sends the signal that she's a political lightweight. Sure, the Tanman is fake and moderately hackish, but people know that he's also ruthless and cunning. Whether you agree with his policies or not, no one doubts that he has the political skills to win the tough battles. A mayor who represents your policy positions is still worthless if he/she is politically ineffective. I may not always agree with Jennings, but he usually gets his way. And that counts for a lot when you know the mayor will be dealing with all sorts of tricky political situations - the thicket of interests in city politics can crush you if you aren't careful. There are also the situations that pit Albany's collective interests against other locales in the state. Would you really want Alice Green sitting down with Pataki and Silver and Bruno to try to extract state money for Albany? Me neither.
P.S. What kind of newspaper informs the readers that a candidate has released their platform, but doesn't go on to describe the platform in any detail? It's like the TU wants you to think that Green Party candidates only put environmental issues in their platforms...
This entry was posted
on Thursday, October 20, 2005 at 6:25 AM.
You can skip to the end and leave a response.
At 2:40 PM ,DIA:
"You want to let someone you call a fake and hackish and ruthless continue to manage that money even after there have been several recent reports showing that he isn't doing a very good job of managing the money at all. Doesn't seem like a very wise choice to me. I'll take someone who can run the city"
Here's my take: I don't like Jennings particularly. Neither do you. That's mostly because we tend to disagree with his policy choices. But I don't think Jennings is incompetent as a mayor. I disagree with his policy positions, but that's all. It's kind of like how I feel about Bush. I disagree with alot of his policies, but i'm willing to accept that he passes the bare minimum threshold for competency. If you disagree with that point, this is a non-starter, but i'll give it a shot.
The thing is, I'll ALWAYS take someone of minimum competency over someone who i'm not sure about their competency. And that's how i feel about Green. She's an amatuer, and she shows it everyday when she campaigns. I'm not comfortable putting amatuers into such important positions. It doesn't make me happy to say that, but it's true.
And this gets back to the "pie-in-the-sky" notion that we discussed earlier this week. (I apologize for using that inflammatory language, perhaps "idealist" would be better). It would be great if democratic politics was done by the thoughtful and considerate and well-meaning and nice, but it's not. It's simply the least worst form of government, and amatuers get eaten alive by the sharks. I tell you I wish it wasn't true but it is. That's why a competent hack who is cunning and ruthless is sometimes better than a well-meaning and polite amatuer. At least that's my experience.
And i don't mean simply in getting money from the state. The mayor faces constant political situations that require a lot of political skill. You have to contend with a veritable thicket of interests across a multitude of issues, and you have to know when to compromise and when to lay down the hammer. I don't see Alice Green as being capable of doing this. Jennings doesn't always do what I want him to do, but he almost always gets what he wants. That's important. Even if the mayor agrees with everything you say on policy, if he/she can't achieve it, it's worthless.
And I'd also suggest you tone down the "citizen-based democracy" rhetoric a bit. Alice Green doesn't represent "the people" any more than Jerry Jennings does. They each represent a different set of people and a different set of interests - Jennings more uptown/professional/white/business and Green more downtown/working/black/laobr. It can be packaged anyway they want, but in the end they are simply the figureheads of different coalitions of intersts and citizens, in my opinion. And that's fine. But I don't think you can pretend that Green represents "the people" and Jennings is simply "the man" who wins only because of money, connections, and the laziness of the people. Albany is a big city with diverse political views. To pretend otherwise weakens the legitimate arguments for the Green coaltion.
At 4:32 PM ,
Fair enough. I agree with you that there will be a good chance for a new direction four years from now.
I also agree that the mayor should represent the whole city. But I too am a realist, and I understand that politicians don't get elected on pure consensus, they get elected on coalitions that surpass 50%. This ineveitably means that they will favor some interests over others. It would be great if politicians simply did what was best for the whole city, but that's not how two party systems tend to work. Alice Green is no exception. If elected, she would simply tend to give more weight to a different set of interests and issues. Does this mean she doesn't care about the whole city? Of course not. But it's not like Jennings doesn't either. It's just natural that their beliefs about how to advance the city tend to coincide with the interests and people who support them.
Now, it may be the case that you think Alice Green or some future candidate will be able to unite the city under policies that are good for all. But this is just persepctive. I have no doubt that Jennings thinks his own policies are the best policies for everyone.
In sum, I don't give much hope to the idea that city politics is anything but a competition between competing interest coalition, each of which have their own view of what is the best way to improve the city. To think otherwise, is in my opinion, idealist.
However, i think you are right in your prognosis. Jennings wins this time, and the next four years set the stage for a real battle between a whole new set of competitors and a wide open playing field for future city politics.
cheers
matt
At 6:13 PM ,
Good points, well said. I agree that the next mayor will have more scrutiny, like Soares does right now. But it's not like Soares is the shining example of great leadership at the moment (i'll reserve judgement in total till he has a few years under his belt). And it's also true that people said Jennings would be unencumbered by interests when he beat Joyce. You can see how that turned out.
I'm certain that there are some candidates who could unite the city better than Jennings. I'm doubtful that the coalition being put together by Green - even if it could win - would be able to achieve this.
mg
» Post a Comment