The Democratic candidate for New York City mayor, Bill de Blasio, surged in the primary season based on a perception that he was an outsider who would bring a fresh look compared to establishment politicians Bill Thompson and Christine Quinn. Thompson and Quinn, the early favorites, have long careers of subservience to Wall Street.
The Republican candidate Joe Lhota basically promises to continue the policies of billionaire mayor Michael Bloomberg, who is widely hated among the city’s poorest communities. De Blasio leads Lhota by as much as 50 points in some polls.
By contrast, de Blasio ran as the anti-Wall Street candidate, creating his campaign around the slogan of the tale of two cities: where luxury and ease of life is enjoyed by a narrow few, while the vast majority experience skyrocketing rents, stagnant wages, underfunded education, and racial profiling. Unsurprisingly, this message, which co-opts aspects of a socialist campaign, struck a chord with many voters.
His campaign message received generally positive coverage from the corporate media, allowing it to spread more widely and giving it the stamp of “respectable” politics. Even when it came out that De Blasio had in his youth identified as a “democratic socialist” and supported Nicaragua’s socialist revolution, much of the media treated this as an amusement or curiosity, and did not try to discredit his campaign. Why would the capitalist-owned media ignore or revile actual socialist campaigns when they address similar themes, while celebrating De Blasio and treating him as a guest of honor at their $5,000-plate dinners?
Left-wing rhetoric, ruling-class politician
The answer is clear: They know De Blasio is not a real threat to the status quo, does not have a program to empower or mobilize poor and working class people and is indeed just another Democratic career politician. He was, however, the one who knew how to best read the pulse of the people in the primary season. Having politicians who can temporarily appropriate the symbolism but not the fighting program of the left has a clear value to the ruling class—
as the experience of the Obama administration has shown.
De Blasio used left-wing rhetoric and promises to rile up a base of support and then moved steadily rightward in an attempt to assure the city’s elite that he will be a “mayor for all New Yorkers.” But one cannot be the mayor for real estate developers and the mayor for low-income tenants, for fast food workers and their corporate bosses. Whether De Blasio will immediately succeed in repairing those bridges to Wall Street is another matter, but it will not be for lack of trying.
After De Blasio held private meetings with real estate developers just days after the primary, these billionaires and tycoons reported feeling far more comfortable with the Democratic candidate.
Likewise, a large share of Wall Street bankers supported Romney’s campaign, but that does not mean they were significantly threatened by Obama’s reelection.
De Blasio’s record as a mainstream Democrat is clear. He worked as Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager in her 2000 Senate run. He is personal friends with the odious billionaire John A. Catsimatidis, the failed Republican mayoral candidate who has been known to lend the Clintons a private jet from time to time. De Blasio has been endorsed by billionaire hedge fund manager George Soros.
Such establishment figures are not betraying their class by supporting de Blasio. Rather, they see the value in a populist campaign to renew mass support among a largely disillusioned electorate.
Loyal to the Empire
Liberal politicians use declarations in support of imperialist foreign policy to send a message to the rest of the ruling class that they will not get “out of pocket.” They do this even when they are running for local office, and de Blasio is no exception.
De Blasio is unwavering in his support for the apartheid state of Israel. At a recent campaign event De Blasio took the time to say that “part of being a leader here [in New York City] is to remind everyone else to remember our obligations to Israel.” De Blasio only forgot the word “ruling-class” before “leader”—a true leader of working-class New Yorkers would promote solidarity with the Palestinian people’s ensuring struggle against colonial occupation.
De Blasio continued by commenting on the situation in Syria, threatening that “this is not a business as usual moment.” He has similarly gone after Nissan and other car-makers for simply doing business with Iranian companies, promoting the illegal and deadly sanctions aimed at regime change in Iran.
Stop-and-frisk double-talk
Bill de Blasio has tried to score political points with the Black and Latino community by promising that he would replace Ray Kelly as police commissioner, in order to overhaul the stop-and-frisk policy.
A judge has already ruled that stop-andr-frisk is racist and unconstitutional as practiced, so De Blasio is essentially calling to respect a judicial order—hardly a radical stance. Stop-and-frisk, which lays bare the capitalist dictatorship in the city, has become a considerable political vulnerability for the city’s elite, which many Democratic officials would like to resolve before it leads to larger social explosions.
A better clue of what little change De Blasio offers in police-community relations can be found in his choices to replace Kelly.
In an interview with Salon, De Blasio says he’d consider Kelly’s top deputy, Philip Banks III, who currently serves as chief of department. Banks told the Daily News “I certainly believe that stop, question and frisk is an effective strategy when it’s done correctly.”
De Blasio has also floated the name of William Bratton, former NYPD Commissioner under Giuliani and later LAPD chief. Bratton said this year, “any police department in America that tries to function without some form of ‘stop and frisk,’ or whatever terminology they use, is doomed to failure.” Bratton advocates for the “broken windows theory” that calls for heavy police presence and harassment in “high-crime areas.” In the 1990s, he introduced a system of data crunching and computer-oriented mass surveillance that came to be known as CompStat.
According to De Blasio, “Bratton did an incredible job both here and L.A.”
Movements, not Democratic politicians, change history
De Blasio offers a list of new programs and services, which would be progressive to the extent he can deliver them. Many of the more significant promises—such as the granting of licenses to undocumented immigrants and the expansion of pre-kindergarten to all New Yorkers, among others—require state action and thus are out of the mayor’s immediate control. He can presumably “fight” for such reforms by just raising them at the state level, and then even if he comes up short, he can present himself as a people’s champion.
Bloomberg himself does this every time the Metropolitan Transit Authority raises the fares; he publicly opposes the fare hike, and then throws up his hands and says it is out of his control. A true socialist program would call for the MTA, the Rent Control Guidelines Board and other “independent” institutions of power to be turned over for democratic people’s control.
De Blasio may immediately effect a few positive reforms—requiring low-income and “middle-income” apartments in new condominium buildings, new legal services for the poor, more attention to the backlog of public housing residents, and so on. But, it must be said, these changes can be tolerated, even if not preferred, by the city’s billionaire rulers seeking to contain working-class discontent.
Likewise, the Wall St. kingpins can tolerate a new policing strategy in place of stop-and-frisk. The NYPD has already started to prioritize their new “Operation Crew-cut,” which has as its aim is to infiltrate, track and arrest teenagers who are in small-time crews on their blocks and in their schools. Even without stop-and-frisk, the antagonistic relationship between the NYPD and oppressed communities will not fundamentally change.
De Blasio, in other words, has called for new policies, but not for a new power—and it is only with power that poor and working people can reshape the city.
Nor will De Blasio advocate for the one thing that can really disrupt politics as usual: a powerful and independent movement of poor and working people, which is organized and unafraid to confront corporate power, abusive landlords and the repressive police.
That is the sort of movement that the PSL and other working class fighters are building. The engine for real change will be mass struggle. Millions of New Yorkers are unemployed, under-employed or living on poverty wages. A huge part of the population relies on food charity to feed their children and themselves. Meanwhile, the same city is home to the most powerful and wealthy capitalist class in the world. The number one question is: to whom does New York City belong?
Wall Street will only tolerate a mayor who puts its interests first. But there are many examples in U.S. history where a fierce struggle of the working class changes all the cynical calculations of ruling class-sponsored politicians, including those of liberal mayors and governors. Once the working class goes into action, the existing political assumptions can quickly go up in smoke. That is what New York City needs more than anything.
The PSL is not running a candidate in this year’s mayoral election, but is encouraging its members and supporters to write in the name of Black revolutionary Assata Shakur, who has been targeted anew by the FBI this year. Shakur is a survivor or racist, police violence. She escaped from prison and was given political asylum in Cuba. But she is now in great danger. The FBI last year has put her on the top of it most wanted list and labeled her a “terrorist” which means that she can be targeted for assassination. While Shakur is not an official candidate, writing in her name is a way to show the government that people stand in solidarity with her. It is a simple way of saying that Shakur does not stand alone. Click here for more information about this write-in campaign that says “Hands off Assata Shakur!”
