New York's Coalition Government

Almost a month after November's election, the leadership of New York's state Senate was finally decided. The method for the decision was decidedly unusual.

The Independent Democratic Conference, a now-permanent caucus of breakaway Democrats, will share power with the Republicans in the Senate. In a move that will require rewriting the Senate's rules, the position of Senate president will alternate biweekly between IDC head Jeff Klein and Republican conference leader Dean Skelos. Klein and Skelos will share authority over the daily Senate agenda, the budget, and the appointment of committee and leadership positions.

How well this new arrangement will work in practice remains to be seen. Reactions outside the Senate have been mixed. Steven Greenberg, a pollster for Siena College, told Bloomberg, "It's easy to craft a press release. It's much harder to actually implement." (1) Bruce Gyory, a Democratic consultant and political science professor, noted that there is no precedent for this sort of power sharing, though that doesn't mean it can't work. Another Democratic consultant, Michael Tobman, said, "Creativity is the foundation of innovative governing. Let's see how this works." (2)

It should be an interesting show. This arrangement will be an experiment in coalition government, almost akin to a parliamentary system. Republicans will rely on votes from the breakaway Democrats in order to maintain control of the Senate, meaning Republicans will have to accept some Democratic priorities they may not much like. But they will not be entirely hostage to their partners in the IDC either, because these Democrats now have no way out. If they go back to their own caucus, they are likely to spend the rest of their Albany careers in a political wilderness as punishment for their perceived betrayal. If they abandon their Republican allies, after all, there are only five of them.

In any case, New York Republicans are a comparatively moderate breed. And Governor Andrew Cuomo is trying to keep to a centrist path, given his national ambitions. It probably serves his purposes to continue to demonstrate that he can govern along with a legislature under divided partisan control. The current occupant of the White House, who Cuomo may hope to succeed, has shown little talent in this area.

The real test of Cuomo's ability to lead under these conditions will come next spring: whether he and the legislature can again deliver an on-time budget, which was as rare in Albany as a unicorn sighting before Cuomo took office. A repeat performance would be a solid demonstration of the long-term feasibility of the Senate's new leadership-by-coalition, as well as a solid political win for the governor.

Whether or not the experiment works, there will be some who remain unhappy with this outcome.

Mainstream Senate Democrats and their allies lost no time playing the race card, complaining to The New York Times that the defectors' alliance with the GOP deprives minority politicians of the spoils they believe are rightfully theirs. The Rev. Al Sharpton, who has never held elective office (though not for lack of trying, with aborted runs for president, New York City mayor and three races for the U.S. Senate), called for a rally against the legislative coalition.

Apart from Senate Democrats, the biggest losers in this coalition may be Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and his fellow Assembly Democrats, who are of a much more orthodox liberal bent than their counterparts. They are likely to find themselves, once again, constrained by a Senate effectively under Republican control.

As an interesting footnote to the New York story, two Democrats in Washington's state Senate defected to the Republican Party in December, giving the GOP a 25-24 edge in that chamber, according to The Washington Post. One of the defecting senators, Rodney Tom, extracted a pledge from Republicans to make him their party's majority leader, which will require changing Senate rules when the legislature convenes.

Compared to the surprise in Olympia, or even the New York Senate's own sordid recent history, the new alliance between the rebel Democrats and the Albany Republicans seems as straightforward as a high school civics class. I hope it works out that way. New York is a state that could use a hefty dose of good government.

Sources:

1) Bloomberg, "New York Senate to Be Led by Democrat-Republican Coalition"

2) Crain's New York, "Break up the Senate: GOP, Dems ink deal"

For more articles, please visit the Palisades Hudson Financial Group LLC newsletter or subscribe to the blog.

Newsletter: http://www.palisadeshudson.com/insights/sentinel/

Blog: http://www.palisadeshudson.com/insights/current-commentary/

View the original article here

Conman's Totalitarianism and Real Freedom

A lot of people in America constantly attack the government for supposedly being a source of oppression. There is a problem with that stance. In America, the government is not the source of oppression. In America, the government is official and subject to check, balance and accountability. Whereas there are plenty of non-government entities that are not official, accountable, checked and balanced, and that as such have the potential to get away with extreme forms of abuse, corruption and tyranny.

Most of these entities claim themselves to be society or America. In reality, we see here people claiming to speak for such things exercising what I call a conman's totalitarianism. Nobody voted for them to speak for society or for America. Nobody has told them that they can do that. And in appropriating the powers to do such a thing, they are practicing a vast and illegitimate power grab.

People in a free country are meant to be protected from all forms of tyranny; and that means first and foremost the people who practice this illegitimate usurpation. It's not the government that in America oppresses the people; it is communities and societies - and those claiming to speak for the preceding - that do. If one is to choose between power that is official, accountable, checked and balanced, or power that is unofficial, unaccountable, unchecked and unbalanced, which would be a better bet to protect people's rights and liberties? I for one would vote for the official, accountable, checked and balanced organs of power any day.

Instead, in America the government is a modulating force that protects people's rights and liberties from oppressors and bullies. Whether these oppressors and bullies claim to speak for America, or speak for society, or speak for traditional values, the Constitution does not support them one bit. The law of the land clearly protects rights and liberties. And that means, against the oppressors and bullies who threaten these rights and liberties while claiming falsely to speak for America.

What we see in the places that such entities wield power is not liberty by any stretch of the imagination. What we see is conman's totalitarianism - an oppression by unelected, unofficial, unchecked and unbalanced organs of power and those who claim to speak for these illegitimate organs. What's worse: An official totalitarianism or an unofficial totalitarianism? That - not liberty vs. lack of liberty - is the issue that was at stake during the Cold War.

There should be a better way than either official totalitarianism or unofficial totalitarianism. There should be such a thing as real freedom. People should be able to walk naked down the street if they want to do so. People should be able to enjoy whatever relationships with each other they can agree upon. People should be able to leave places that aren't suitable for them and go to places that are suitable for them. People should be able to share poetry and art with each other on subways and buses and build a real culture instead of thinking that protecting their culture means beating up Pakistani immigrants or raping black girls.

In America, it's not the government that is the source of oppression. That was the case with the Soviet Union; that's not the case here. The true oppressors in America are private:

The people who claim to speak for society.

The people who claim to speak for community.

The people who claim to speak for "traditional values."

And it is in confronting them, not in making up more ridiculous accusations against American government, that true liberty is achieved.

View the original article here