Sen. Schumer (photo via @SenSchumer)
New York's Charles Schumer has suddenly become the most important Democratic leader in the country through his selection as Minority Leader in the United States Senate. Schumer’s role over the next few years will be critical in shaping the nation's future.
Leading 46 Democrats, Schumer looks back on a net loss of several Senate seats since 2009 and forward to 2018, when 10 Senate Democrats will be up for re-election in states won by Donald Trump. Schumer is said to get along well with Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, but says he will draw the line at being too accommodationist with Trump and the Republicans. "When he is opposed to our values, we're going to go after him tooth and nail," Schumer said of President-elect Trump. "For instance, we're not going to let him repeal Dodd-Frank or the rules we've put in place to limit Wall Street."
Democrats will oppose Trump every time he takes "a dark, divisive turn," Schumer has promised. Already, Schumer has charged that the choice of former Breitbart News chief Stephen Bannon as White House senior counselor and strategist means that "dangerous and bigoted ideas will have a seat at the table."
A New Yorker with flair, drive, and self-confidence
Senator Chuck Schumer has a good deal of New York support, enthusiasm, and momentum behind him. He easily beat his Republican challenger, Wendy Long, in his 2016 re-election campaign, garnering about 70% of the vote (Democratic presidential nominee and former New York Senator Hillary Clinton, by contrast, got about 58% in New York).
Over his 19-year career in the Senate, Schumer has come across as an energetic, hard-charging New Yorker. When he was elected to the Senate in 1998, he made a pledge that he has kept, to visit each of New York's 62 counties at least once a year. The biographical sketch on his Facebook page says "he has built a reputation as a leader in finding common-sense solutions to national issues and a tireless fighter for New York."
Schumer has expressed a vision for rebuilding and re-energizing the national Democratic Party. "We need to have a party that works on behalf of all Americans," he said in his first speech as minority leader. "And a bigger, bolder, sharper-edged economic message that talks about how people in the middle class and those struggling to make it there can do better, but also deals with the unfairness in the American economic system, will unite our caucus and speak to the blue-collar worker in West Virginia and Michigan as well as the people who live along the coasts."
What is Schumer likely to do? Looking back along two historical paths may give us some guidance.
Schumer's revealing 2007 book
Senator Schumer's book “Positively American: Winning Back the Middle Class Majority One Family at a Time,” published in 2007, offers insights into the senator's thinking and strategies.
Three themes in particular stand out.
1. Republicans are skilled at getting their "message" across to voters. Schumer contended that the Republican Party was mostly dominated by "theocrats" (conservatives who dislike government and want to minimize it) and "economic royalists" (people who want unfettered property rights and minimal or no government regulations or restrictions on business). Neither group represents mainline American values, Schumer says. But Republicans have used three shrewd marketing tactics, driven by the right-wing media: 1) Keep stressing that "What's good for the wealthiest is always, always, good for America."; 2) practice politics of fear and division; and 3) identify issues that connect with their values and then repeatedly return to them.
That worked for Republicans in 2004 and 2006, Schumer said. It sounds like some of his analysis about what happened in 2016.
2. Democrats need to really understand the middle class. Schumer argued that the Democrats had better policy positions than their opponents but did not connect well with the vast majority of voters. To help sharpen their strategies, Schumer invented and inserted in his book a hypothetical middle-class family, headed by Joe and Eileen Bailey, which he placed in Massapequa, Long Island. They should be supporting Democrats, but in recent elections, they tilted toward Republicans.
Schumer presents a detailed, insightful profile:
They have a house, a mortgage, property taxes that never cease to go up, monthly payments for two cars, and three kids in the local public schools. They both work because they want to and because they need to...The Baileys are generally optimists. They do not see impending doom on the horizon, though they sometimes worry that America's place in the world is under threat...But they are increasingly bothered by nagging worries. They're worried about terrorists who are...bent on killing Americans...They also worry about economic forces that are beyond their control...They don't see how they can possibly pay for college for their children. They haven't lost jobs to outsourcing, but some neighbors have...They are bothered by the corporate excesses that they read about in the paper [and the] moral excesses they see all around them...They believe that everyone deserves a fair chance and are sympathetic to those who are less fortunate than they are...
Politically, they are up for grabs...they are part of the new wave of independents...They support government when they feel it supports them, which isn't often...Most of the time, it seems to them that government is focused on someone else -- the very poor or the very rich.
That all sounds familiar. The electorate in 2016 was very divided, characterized by vague feelings that something is amiss in the nation, and mistrustful or cynical about both major parties.
3. Democrats can win by offering concrete, credible policies and solutions that appeal to the middle class. Over half of the book (pp. 117-263) is devoted to advancing and discussing specific policy proposals. Schumer titled his proposals with a clever catchphrase, "The 50% Solution." Here are a few examples (some are dated; but others still have a ring of relevance):
*Increase reading and math scores by 50%
* Increase the number of college graduates by 50%
*Reduce illegal immigration by at least 50% and increase legal migration by up to 50%
*Reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 50%
*Reduce cancer mortality by 50%
*Reduce abortions by 50%
*Reduce tax evasion and avoidance by 50%
*Increase our ability to fight terrorism by 50%
Nine years later, this year, Schumer is again patiently explaining that it is not enough just to oppose what the other party is trying to do. Political leaders have a responsibility to advance specific ideas and credible, concrete proposals in terms that people can understand and appreciate. “Positively American” is a good model, and many of its ideas still seem relevant.
Schumer's legacy from New York's previous eminent U.S. Senators
A second way of discerning Schumer's possible directions and influence is to look back at five of his predecessor U.S. senators from New York. Each had outsized talent, influence, and accomplishments, sometimes leaving legacies that were surpassed only by those of presidents.
*Daniel P. Moynihan (D, 1977-2001) came to the Senate after a long career, including White House advisor, Counselor to the President, and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. He had served under two Democratic presidents, Kennedy and Johnson, and two Republicans, Nixon and Ford, and was exceptionally skilled in bi-partisan negotiating and finding common ground. He was also a notable scholar, authoring 15 books and studies, including several influential works on important policy issues.
As Senator, Moynihan blended academic erudition, wit, and experience. He fought to get New York's fair share of federal aid. He moderated his strong anti-Soviet views and opposed the Reagan administration's hawkish Cold War policies. Taking on complex issues, he helped shape the Tax Reform Act of 1986. He supported protection of the environment and systematic transportation policy. But he maintained his position as a highly respected, independent-minded statesman by breaking with the liberal positions of his party on several occasions. For instance, as chair of the Senate Finance Committee in the 1990s, he opposed President Bill Clinton's proposal to expand healthcare coverage to all Americans, asserting that the dimensions of the health care crisis in the nation had been exaggerated.
*Herbert H. Lehman (D, 1949-1957), a former governor, was distinguished in the Senate for his defense of civil liberties. He was one of the first and most persistent opponents of Senator Joseph McCarthy's irresponsible crusade against alleged Communist influence in the government. He challenged McCarthy to produce proof, questioned his sources and tactics, and complained about his browbeating of witnesses McCarthy hauled before his investigating committee.
Lehman gave speeches in McCarthy's home state of Wisconsin, denouncing the senator and his followers for inciting fear to advance political ambition. He helped lead the campaign that resulted in McCarthy's censure by the Senate in 1954 for his ruthless, reckless tactics. Lehman voted against the Internal Security Act of 1950, calling it a threat to civil liberties. He was particularly alarmed about a provision giving the President authority to round up and detain people when there was a "reasonable ground" to believe that they will engage in acts of espionage or sabotage.
*Robert F. Wagner (D, 1927-1949) proposed initiatives to help organized labor and combat unemployment as the Great Depression began to grip the nation after 1929, but his efforts were rebuffed by Republicans. He became one of the chief critics of President Herbert Hoover's inaction to combat the Depression, calling for bold, national action. When Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected president in 1932, Wagner became one of his key advisors and policy architects. He was so influential that Roosevelt once called him "the co-pilot of the New Deal." Wagner drafted and sponsored several key pieces of legislation, including the National Industrial Recovery Act (1933), National Labor Relations Act (the "Wagner Act") (1935), and Social Security (1935).
*Elihu Root (R, 1909-1915) was one of the nation's most influential and respected statesmen for more than a quarter century. He came to the Senate after stints as U.S. Secretary of War and Secretary of State, where he had advised a number of presidents on several issues and helped transform the United States into a world power. He helped persuade business interests and press leaders to support an activist foreign policy and measured economic reform, a tactic he continued to champion as senator.
In 1912, as a result of his work in bringing countries together through cooperation and arbitration, Root was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. That year, he helped sidetrack his old friend Theodore Roosevelt's bid for another term as president by supporting the incumbent, William H. Taft. Root counseled preparedness as the U.S. readied for World War I and, after the war, supported membership in the League of Nations, with reservations. Along the way, he served in other important capacities, including chairing the convention to revise the state constitution in 1915.
*William H. Seward (Whig/Republican, 1849-1861), a former governor, was a leading opponent of slavery expansion in the 1850s. In an 1858 speech, he asserted that the U.S. had two "antagonistic systems...continually coming into closer contact, and collision results...It is an irrepressible conflict between opposing and enduring forces, and it means that the United States must and will, sooner or later, become entirely either a slave-holding nation, or entirely a free-labor nation."
Seward vocally opposed the federal Fugitive Slave Act, passed in 1850, and set an example for evading it by occasionally letting fugitive slaves shelter at his house in Auburn. Seward helped establish and shape the Republican Party in the late 1850s and was the leading candidate for the party's presidential nomination in 1860. His strident opposition to slavery undermined his candidacy but, when Abraham Lincoln was nominated, Seward campaigned for him. Lincoln appointed Seward as secretary of state and he became one of Lincoln's most trusted confidantes and advisors on war issues, emancipation of slaves, and political strategy. Seward was perhaps second only to Lincoln himself in importance in key policy-making areas.
Chuck Schumer will make his own Senatorial history
In the days ahead, Chuck Schumer, always independent-minded, will strike his own course according to his conscience.
But he can draw on the legacy of previous U.S. Senators from New York -- Seward, for uncompromising, principled stands on issues with social justice and moral dimensions; Root, for appealing to business interests to support responsible public policies; Wagner, for opposing federal policies of neglect and for formulating crisp policy and effective laws; Lehman, for defending the innocent against public bullies; and Moynihan, for political independence, principled positions (even when unpopular in his own party), and skilled bipartisanship.
Of course, Schumer needs to do all of that while at the same time looking out for New York's interests.
History suggests that Chuck Schumer is up to the challenge.
***
Dr. Bruce W. Dearstyne's latest book is The Spirit of New York: Defining Events in the Empire State's History, published in 2015 by SUNY Press.
***
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.
Council Member Constantinides, the author
As we continue to digest the results of the election, a troubling reality emerges that our core beliefs are under attack. As New Yorkers, we stand in unity with our neighbors, especially Muslim, Latino, and LGBTQ communities across our city.
We are also left with deep disappointment because President-elect Trump has attacked climate change as a hoax. He has pledged to undo American efforts to prevent a global warming catastrophe, including retreat from the Paris Agreement on Climate, Clean Power Plan, and new EPA regulations.
It is clear that our city and other local governments need to lead the way on protecting equality, as well as protecting our planet.
As Chair of the New York City Council's Environmental Protection Committee, I remain focused on making our city greener and more sustainable. We learned four years ago with Hurricane Sandy that the effects of climate change can cause devastating damage to our homes, infrastructure, and places we hold dear. Since then, New York has made great strides in resilience and sustainable building.
With a strong environmental partner in Mayor de Blasio, we have already begun working toward our commitment to reduce our carbon emissions 80% by 2050 and continue to invest in environmental education and programming. The City Council recently passed legislation I sponsored to boost renewable energy including solar, geothermal, and bioheat.
We have also helped encourage sustainable habits such as taking public transportation more and using less air conditioning. Earlier this month, we passed a bill, Intro. 1124, which will encourage more New Yorkers to drive electric vehicles by implementing a pilot program for publicly accessible charging stations.
On Monday, I will chair an Environmental Protection Committee oversight hearing on emissions that come from power plants throughout the city.
It is time for us to be bolder in our efforts to lead on environmental policy, through innovative policies and careful oversight, like the efforts mentioned above.
We have introduced legislation that advocates for environmental justice in our most underserved communities, making New York the first large city in the nation that would have such a commitment.
Knowing that 75% of our emissions come from buildings, we are exploring the use of wind energy in our city, allowing neighbors to tap into the same geothermal energy source to power their own homes, and solar thermal installation on city-owned buildings. New York has already been a worldwide role model in sustainability and we must continue to keep this work a top priority.
Now is the time that we must stand up and fight for our planet’s future.
***
City Council Member Costa Constantinides represents the 22nd Council District, which includes his native Astoria along with parts of Woodside, East Elmhurst, and Jackson Heights. He serves as Chair the Council's Environmental Protection Committee and sits on six additional committees. On Twitter @Costa4NY.
***
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.
NYS Assembly chamber (photo: MattWade on flickr)
On November 7, 2017, New Yorkers will be asked to vote on whether to call a state constitutional convention. When this question was last on the ballot in 1997 (it’s required to be on the ballot once every 20 years), the most publicized argument not to call a convention was that the convention delegate election process would be dominated by the same interests that dominate New York’s Legislature.
That argument fails to account for the many successes of America’s 236 state constitutional conventions since 1776, including New York’s nine. It also fails to explain why the same special interest groups who would supposedly benefit from a convention will spend millions of dollars opposing one. Except for the fact that incumbent public officials can run as delegates, New York has one of the best delegate election processes among the states.
But, there is still much room for improvement.
New York’s Delegate Election Process
New York’s Constitution mandates what’s known as a mixed delegate election system. Of the 204 delegates to be elected, 189 are elected from New York’s 63 state Senate districts (three from each district) and 15 elected at large for the entire state. Crucially, the details of how this mixed system works are left up to the discretion of the Legislature.
The last time the Legislature chose the election details it created a system whereby in each Senate district voters voted up or down for three candidates, and in the at-large election voted up or down for a party-based slate of candidates (see the sample ballot below).
A Better Delegate Election Process
A better mixed system would be built on a foundation of what political scientists call Mixed Member Proportional (MMP), a type of electoral system used in Germany and New Zealand at the national level; and Scotland, Wales, and more than a dozen German states at the regional level. In a 2006 survey, political scientists who specialize in electoral systems ranked MMP as the best family of electoral systems.
Part of the MMP mix would include ranked-choice voting, a type of electoral system used in Ireland and Australia at the national level, and in many U.S. cities at the local level. In 2016, Maine voters approved a ballot initiative to choose the Governor and state Legislature via ranked-choice voting. In the same 2006 survey, ranked-choice voting was ranked the second-best family of electoral systems.
In an MMP system, voters cast two types of votes: one for candidates in their local district, and one for a party. The votes, in turn, count for two tiers of seats: a local candidate tier, and a compensatory tier for parties that didn’t win seats in the candidate vote in proportion to their party vote. Within the constraints of New York’s current constitution, this could work as follows:
In choosing candidates from their local three-member Senate district, voters would rank their preferences rather than vote up or down for each candidate. Such a “ranked-choice” voting system wouldn’t require separate primary and general elections because runoffs are instant. Most important, it wouldn’t penalize voters for voting for their first choice rather than a less preferred candidate with a better chance of winning. With New York’s three-member districts, any district candidate with 25% of the vote plus one would win a district seat, thus strengthening party competition and mitigating the harmful effects of partisan gerrymandering.
The party votes would be used to ensure that the ratio of seats to votes is proportional. For example, assume the Democratic Party gets 49% of the vote, the Republican Party 46%, and an independent party 5%. Under the current delegate election system, the Democratic and Republican parties would most likely win 100% of the seats. But under MMP, the independent party would be entitled to 5% of the overall seats and thus win ten of the fifteen at-large seats, with the balance divided proportionately among the Democrats and Republicans. The result of such compensatory seats is that small parties and political entrepreneurs would have a much greater incentive to compete in the election.
Each party would compile its list of candidates for proportional allocation the way it wanted. For example, a party could add the proportion of a candidate’s district vote (e.g. the number of top-three votes) to the proportion of the party’s district vote to come up with a candidate’s party list ranking. Many other methods could also be used.
When a delegate’s seat became vacant, the party would choose the next name on its list as a replacement. No special election would be held.
Although the 15 at-large, compensatory seats might seem to guarantee a relatively small amount of proportionality, the combination of ranked-choice voting in the three-member districts plus the compensatory seats would lead to a remarkably high degree of proportionality (although having more compensatory seats would be even better).
A state-of-the-art electoral system should provide not only voters, but also parties and candidates, with more options consistent with the principle of political equality and robust public deliberation. Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) combined with ranked-choice voting accomplishes that.
Party-Based Electoral Competition is Good
In the United States, the media teaches the public to think disdainfully of political parties. Consequently, the word “partisan” has become a dirty word. But contemporary democracy is unthinkable without parties, and party labels are an extremely efficient and effective system for educating the public about candidates. MMP offers the best of both party- and candidate-centered elections while radically diminishing the need for public financing of elections.
States have had many democracy enhancing constitutional conventions that were dominated by two-party delegate competition, including New York’s famous state ratifying convention in 1788 that was dominated by Federalists and Anti-Federalists (the Anti-Federalists won the most delegate seats but were eventually convinced to side with the Federalists). The chief worry should not be party but incumbent legislator dominated conventions. Only the latter type of domination violates the core democratic function of a convention, which is to bypass the Legislature’s gatekeeping power over constitutional amendment. Still, using MMP to lower barriers to entry for both parties and candidates would greatly strengthen the delegate election process by providing voters with more meaningful choices.
New York’s past practice of having candidates outside the two major parties run as a slate is a vastly inferior alternative to MMP but probably the best that New York’s Legislature would allow if voters approved calling a convention. Thus, reform groups may focus their efforts on putting together a slate. In 1966, when New York last had a delegate election, such efforts were remarkably successful—albeit still inadequate (7% of the elected delegates were incumbent legislators).
Getting to MMP
The politics of improving the delegate election process are admittedly dismal. Legislatures hate conventions because they function as a check on their power, so the last thing they want to do is strengthen the institution. Ditto for the powerful special interest groups that thrive working through the Legislature and thus view a convention as a threat.
One reason for hope is that federal courts could rule that the delegate election system approved by the Legislature for the three-member districts violates the proportional requirements under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The 1965 Voting Rights Act was passed just before the last delegate election took place in 1966. If the Legislature doesn’t change the type of system it approved in early 1966, it is likely to be sued under that law. That could give the federal courts the ability to design a more proportional electoral system such as single-member districts (the courts’ conventional remedy based on using an up-or-down voting rule) or ranked-choice voting within the constraints of New York’s constitutionally specified three-member districts.
The best long-term hope for meaningful delegate election reform is the political logic of the famous “veil of ignorance” effect regarding democratic reforms that won’t take effect for at least 20 years into the future. The basic idea is that even crassly self-interested convention delegates would have an incentive to support democracy enhancing reforms such as MMP if they wouldn’t take effect until after those delegates would be retired from politics and couldn’t foresee how they would personally benefit from preserving an otherwise inferior status quo.
Most of those using the delegate election process as an argument against calling a convention are using that argument as a pretext for opposition on other grounds. But they do have a point, so those who aren’t using that argument as a pretext should direct their energies to fixing the process either through the Legislature and courts or, if that’s not possible, the next convention.
The U.S. Declaration of Independence asserts that Americans should have an “unalienable” right to “alter” their form of government, including the right to peaceably bypass their legislatures’ gatekeeping power over needed democratic reforms. The inter-generational struggle to protect and enhance this most fundamental of all democratic rights should dwarf considerations of short-term expediency. The cure for the deficiencies of the current process, like democracy itself, is a better process, not the eternal tyranny of the legislature over the constitutional amendment process.
Like all electoral systems, a Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) system with ranked-choice voting is not perfect. But to safeguard our most fundamental of all democratic rights, it would be a great legacy for us to leave to future generations of New Yorkers.
***
J.H. Snider, the president of iSolon.org, is the editor of The New York State Constitutional Convention Clearinghouse and author of Does the World Really Belong to the Living? The Decline of the Constitutional Convention in New York and Other US States, 1776–2015.
***
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.