David Paterson: Activist, Progressive…Governor
In 1999, when New York City activists organized civil disobedience to protest the police shooting of African-immigrant Amadou Diallo, one of New York state’s most prominent legislators arrived at police headquarters in Manhattan to be arrested as part of the a remarkable civil rights protest.
The veteran state senator who was rising to a leadership role in Democratic circles took a place symbolically blocking an entrance to One Police Place and held his wrists out. Police officers attached plastic handcuffs and led the distinguished gentleman away to be charged with disorderly conduct.
The legislator’s name was David Paterson.
On Monday, he will become the 55th governor of New York state.
Little known outside New York until now, Paterson becomes an instant political celebrity as he prepares to replace scandal-plagued Governor Eliot Spitzer, whose career was ruined by his association with a money-for-sex scandal.
Paterson is a radically different political player than Spitzer, a wealthy lawyer who grabbed headlines for battling Wall Street insiders but who always acted a little more like the bankers and brokers he challenged than the victims of corporate excess.
There was nothing grassroots, neighborhood-level or community-based about Eliot Spitzer’s activism. As New York’s Attorney General, he would as an outgrowth of the controversy surrounding Diallo’s death, announce plans to conduct inquiries into police practices.
But Spitzer did not get his hands dirty in that fight or many others, and he did not hold them out to be handcuffed.
That’s why, when Spitzer prepared to seek the governorship, he asked Paterson to run with him. Spitzer recognized that he needed the state senator’s credibility with community activists and progressives, even if the gubernatorial candidate never quite embraced his running-mate as a full partner.
As is often the case with lieutenant governors, the No. 2 man in New York was not always treated fairly by the No. 1 man. They clashed a bit during the 2006 campaign, and no one was surprised when Spitzer grabbed all the headlines once the team took office.
But Paterson’s decision to accept the second position on Spitzer’s ticket in the first weeks of 2006, which many questioned at the time, has two years after the fact made him the man of the moment.
Paterson has been handed a remarkable opportunity to be not just a state officials but a national leader. And his long experience makes its likely that he will handle the spotlight and the job with aplomb.
Democrats like Paterson’s ex-boss, former New York Mayor David Dinkins, say he will be a “superb governor,” and even Republican partisans like New York Congressman Peter King describe the veteran pol as “a class act.”
That will distinguish Paterson from Spitzer, and may well be the key to his success in a role that no one expected him to be taking at this point but that most serious observers of New York politics say Paterson is uniquely prepared to fill as an experienced and capable progressive leader.
Spitzer, egotistical in the extreme and never much of a team player, personally picked Paterson to run with him. The move was a political one, designed to strengthen Spitzer’s hand as he grabbed for New York’s top job after a brief but high-profile tenure as state Attorney General.
There were predictable turf wars between Paterson and Spitzer during the campaign and in its aftermath, particularly with regard to questions about staffing and the role Paterson would have in the new administration.
More significantly, there were policy differences, including one related to the Diallo case.
Paterson had sponsored legislatioin to establish reasonable restrictions on the use of deadly force by police officers, but Spitzer publicly disavowed the bill during the campaign.
Such incidents put distance between the candidates. But both men were smart about their circumstance; they didn’t let things get too ugly or too public. And they won in November by a landslide.
Paterson–who, while his ambition may not rival that of Spitzer, has always kept a politician’s eye on the ladder to higher positions–wanted the lieutenant governorship.
And Spitzer wanted Paterson on his team.
Paterson’s strength was not so much that he was a prominent African-American official, although that certainly didn’t hurt his prospects in a state with a large and politically-active African-American voting bloc. What really mattered was that, while Spitzer seemed like a man who was pushing everyone else aside in his rush to the governorship, Paterson was a Democrat with deep roots in the party, a long record of public service and a good measure of activist credibility.
David Paterson is a member of a great New York political family who grew up in and around the state’s public life. His father, Basil, was New York’s secretary of state, the Democratic nominee for lieutenant governor in 1970 and the first African-American vice chair of the Democratic National Committee. Basil Paterson, a long-time hero of urban liberals, remains a well-regarded labor lawyer and outspoken progressive — as well as his son’s closest counselor.
More than two decades ago, David Paterson won his father’s old state senate seat and began a rise that would take him to the top post in the chamber’s Democratic caucus, that of minority leader.
Paterson has always had better ties to progressives than Spitzer.
Paterson has, as well, a particularly strong track record of taking bold positions on civil rights issues–especially gay rights. “David Paterson is a terrific, progressive guy–extremely LGBT-friendly,” says Ethan Geto, a Democratic strategist with a history of activism on behalf of New York’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. Indeed, Geto told The Advocate magazine that was thought Paterson would be a champion in the struggle for to advance same-sex marriage initiatives in the state.
Paterson will, as well, emerge as a national leader on issues of concern to people with disabilities–both as a passionate advocate and someone who can speak from experience.
Paterson is legally blind–he suffers from optic atrophy, a degeneration of the fibers of the optic nerve–but the condition has rarely seemed too much of a burden for this graduate of Columbia University in 1977 and Hofstra Law School.
As it happens, Paterson will be the first legally blind governor and only the fourth African-American governor in the nation’s history.
He will, as well, become Hillary Clinton’s highest profile African-American backer.
Paterson has worked hard to elect Clinton, earning high marks for his campaigning on behalf of the senator’s presidential run in Iowa and other states.
The speculation was that, if Clinton won the presidency, Paterson would be Spitzer’s choice to succeed the senator. And Paterson would have been an able senator. Now, he will be an able governor.
Paterson has to handle the transition smartly, which will be tough because of the usually rapid decline in Spitzer’s fortunes–and because the outgoing governor did not always keep his lieutenant governor in the loop.
But Paterson, because of his background as a senator, is likely to work better and smarter with the legislature than did his edgy — often confrontational — predecessor.
And in a year that is likely to see Democrats do very well in New York’s fall elections for legislative seats — whether Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama heads the national ticket, and especially if they are both on it — Paterson is likely to go from strength to strength.
John Nichols is a co-founder of Free Press and the co-author with Robert W. McChesney of TRAGEDY & FARCE: How the American Media Sell Wars, Spin Elections, and Destroy Democracy — The New Press.
© 2008 The Nation
Thank you John for these details about Gov. Paterson. When I hear you on radio I always appreciate the calm that you communicate, even on the outrageous, blatant, law-breaking of now. Yesterday I heard reports about Paterson that implied that he is an insider in dysfunctional Albany (I am not a New Yorker). We have broken government everywhere (my state, CA, is now laying off teachers in leiu of oil extraction fees), but we DO have individuals everywhere who deserve our support. I feel for New Yorkers, but it is good to know that David Paterson may prove even more deserving of support, and maybe even respect. I respect you very much. (off topic I loved hearing you on Wisconsin primary day, voting with your daughter … Rachel Maddow show).
I hope David Paterson runs for President in 2016 or even 2012 even though I question his support of Clinton. He looks like he has far more substance than Spitzer ever had. The Democratic Party is rapidly dying out on the national level and neither Clinton nor Obama are any help.
I am thrilled about David Paterson. The thing I like about him best is that he will be the first openly PEAK-OIL-AWARE governor!
http://local.theoildrum.com/node/3735
I can only hope he will continue to speak out about the oil supply crisis so that people will start to understand the real reason why oil prices are high and are only going to continue to get higher- forever.
The fact that Patterson supports Clinton, and is having kind words said about him by the GOP state leadership is troubling to me. Spitzer was really stupid to patronize prostitutes (and apparently demand unprotected sex from them). However, that transgression falls far short of a high crime or political misdemeanor worthy of impeachment, or criminal felony indictment. Obviously, he made it easy for his political opponents to gin up an excuse to force a crusader against the corporatocracy, that Spitzer was, from office. He stood up against his own class, and for that they had to take him down.
Patterson could be a great progressive Governor, but the history of his support from establishment figures would tend to suggest that the reality will fall far short of the promise. I hope that he is able to be his own man. To have him one day be a truly progressive candidate for President would be a wonderful narrative - if he is in-fact the real deal.
Perhaps Patterson ought to rethink how smart it is to keep supporting white philanderers who don’t treat their #2 people so well. Clinton didn’t treat Gore all that well. Spitzer hasn’t treated Patterson so well. Barack would love to have him as a supporter, I’m sure. Shall he stay with Clinton when he could make a clean break? You say he’s a good guy? Smart? Are you sure?
Sad but true: Within the Democratic Party, progressives do have to reach out to centrists and vice versa. It’s how the game is played in two-party America, especially when confronted with a close race like Hillary Clinton’s Senatorial campaigns. As a result of his ties with Clinton, it wouldn’t look good for Paterson (with one t, please) to jump into the Obama camp.
The flipside of that is, mainline Democrats use progressives when they need to, then generally pay scant attention to the progressives’ issues and positions once they get elected. They do the same thing with the African-American vote: take it for granted, then ignore what’s important to them, or introduce bills that get compromised into oblivion.
The Democratic Party is no longer welcoming to progressives. Jump to the Greens.
Could Ferraro’s exit and Clinton’s apology be related to the political reality in Albany?
Now that Patterson is Governor one wonders if he will again make a symbolic gesture of as he did in the past. Or like all other politicians who have achieved the pinnacle of their elected position will he merely become another status quo, pay lip service to progressive values like ever other inside-the-belt-way do nothing piece of pond scum.
For that matter what has Nichols ever done by way of civil disobedience other than run his mouth (or computer keys) via taking concrete action and collect his corporate pay check?
Look, it’s another Nichols/Nation article on Demok elites maintaining the capitalist status quo on another day in the USA without 700 mpg high speed rail while the ice caps melt and the coastal villages flood.
Agree with dbcsez: After Edwards, was forced to suspend (no matching funds) I found myself lost. The more I read, and researched, Hillary and Obama, the less I like either one of them, on the Issue4’s that are importent to me! The sort of things I send Senator’s e-mails about, make phone calls about, and sign petitions!
(I really like John Nichols, but I have to question his use of the term Progressive, other then gay&civil-rights I didn’t hear him mention any real issues on which Peterson is Progressive)
I went to the Green Party web-site, and breathed a sigh of relief! A Party I could work with, and for (with the Dems. I always felt like I was working to pull them along)!! Right On, on so many Importent issues, including equal-rights! ALSO:
* Single payer, non-profit healthcare
* REAL election reform, Instant Run-off voting
* Media Reform
* FAIR Trade, bring OUR jobs back
* Campaign Finance Reform
All this and much more, are part of the Party Platform, is you run Green, you run on the Platform!!Check it out
***GO GREEN***www.votesmart.org***COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY**
Truthteller said: “However, that transgression falls far short of a high crime or political misdemeanor worthy of impeachment, or criminal felony indictment.”
Actually, since Spitzer is purported to have sent for the girl to be transported across state lines, he may be subject to federal law against prostitution, 18 USC 2422:
“(a) Whoever knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual to travel in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, to engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or
both.”
As the penalty may be more than a year, this would be considered a felony, which is typically the standard for impeachment.
John Nichols, cut the crap!
On the one hand, you characterize Paterson as a “progressive.” Then you write:
“He will, as well, become Hillary Clinton’s highest profile African-American backer.
Paterson has worked hard to elect Clinton, earning high marks for his campaigning on behalf of the senator’s presidential run in Iowa and other states.”
Since when is Hillary Clinton a progressive???
Maybe that’s the way your fellow “cruise missile liberals” see it over at “The Nation.” AS you chit-chat with your inside- the-Beltway cronies. Let’s listen in on a typical luncheon conversation — (”Oh, wouldn’t lunch & martinis be so much nicer with the Democrats in power! I do hope they’d win!”)
John Nichols, your time has come and gone — as is also true for your fellow phony-progressives over at The Nation.
The following article comments on how “The Nation” readily deserted a *real* progressive, Cindy Sheehan. … The title says it all: “The Nation Urges Cindy Sheehan Not to Run for Congress Against Nancy Pelosi.”
Quoting from the article:
“It is worth recalling that the Nation, along with most of the ‘left’ and the mass media, kept silent about Sheehan’s letter explaining her rupture with the Democrats. In two comments about Sheehan at the time, the Nation’s John Nichols referred *only* to her May 28 statement in which she expressed weariness and some bitterness over her experiences in the antiwar movement, and declared that she was temporarily stepping back from her activities.”
Cindy’s *other* statement was extremely critical of the Democratic Party. … I guess you forgot about that one, Johnny-boy. Someone must have forgotten to slip that *second* statement of Cindy Sheehan’s through the transom, eh? Or, maybe the cat ate that second statement. (See, it’s multiple choice, choose your excuse.)
Continuing with the article, “The Nation Urges Cindy Sheehan Not to Run for Congress Against Nancy Pelosi” —
“The Democrats’ failure to pursue impeachment (as led by Nancy Pelosi et al) demonstrates their congenital cowardice and their complicity in the crimes of the Bush administration. That the Democrats reject the removal of a president who has systematically violated the US Constitution and numerous laws, launched a war on the basis of lies, arrogated to himself quasi-dictatorial powers and overseen the establishment of the legal and institutional apparatus for a police state exposes their unwillingness and inability to defend basic democratic rights. …
“However, whether Sheehan has a serious prospect of winning the election or not is a secondary matter. What type of political figure supports a candidate only when he or she stands a good chance of success? The type that makes up the editorial staff of the Nation: well-heeled, complacent, opportunist. Matters of principle mean little or nothing to such people, and fighting against the stream is unthinkable.
“The reverence evidenced by left-liberal circles for Pelosi is a sign of their right-wing orientation. ‘A Democratic speaker of the House, and the first woman in the job!’ (writes The Nation). The fact that Pelosi is a multi-millionaire supporter of American imperialism and militarism, who voted for the Patriot Act and supported Bush’s program of warrantless wire-tapping, doesn’t faze Pollitt or her colleagues terribly much.
“The Nation’s immediate task is to sanitize whichever one of the right-wing candidates gains the Democratic Party 2008 presidential nomination and present him or her to its readership in “left” colors. The editorial staff’s distaste for Hillary Clinton — or, more precisely, fears about her lack of credibility due to her reactionary track record — will not prevent them from climbing on board Clinton’s campaign band-wagon should she be the chosen nominee. …
“The Nation and its writers speak for a privileged layer of American society, which views the ascension of the Democrats as desirable for the advancement of its own interests. Sheehan reflects something different, the growth of antiwar and left-wing sentiment within the working population, and an increasing alienation from the two-party system. …
“The Nation staff is unable to conceive of the world without the Democratic Party. This is not merely an ideological problem, or the result of a lack of political imagination. This layer is tied to the Democrats by a thousand social and financial threads.”
It sounds like Spitzer’s problem of thinking with the wrong head will be good for New York. This guy sounds like a real winner.
Bill
With so many sleazy New York politicians showing their true colors this month (Clinton, Ferraro, Spitzer) perhaps its time for voters in the other 49 states and DC to ask themselves why they would support any New York politician aspiring to national political office. New York City is so corrupt that its corrupting influience poisons the whole state. Don’t let their evil influence contaminate the whole nation any more than it already has.
Sorry, I didn’t attribute the source of the article I quoted above, entitled: “The Nation Urges Cindy Sheehan Not to Run for Congress Against Nancy Pelosi.”
It’s an article by David Walsh, and here’s the article in its entirety — http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/aug2007/shee-a23.shtml
wsws: agreed et al….
Nancy Pelosi is nothing more than a piece of rotten bought and paid for dung heap.
The Nation and the elites working there think they know what is best for the rest of us. The fact that they take up good space on this forum suggests that even CD is scraping the bottom of the barrel.
I’ve donated money to Sheehan and will be voting for Nader again for the 4th time!
Nichols and his corporate handlers can kiss my ass.
Laz Long:
I said “worthy” of prosecution. I realize that’s splitting hairs, but from what I have been reading, the Mann Act is generally considered to be racist and arcane, and rarely used for this type of offense, which just reeks of a witch hunt.
As a New Yorker, I feel betrayed by former governor Spitzer. His actions make those of us who once believed in him sad and disappointed, although some of the jokes about him are freaking hilarious. We expected better from him. Now I see him as nothing but an extremely arrogant, dishonest, egotistical hypocrite so I’m glad he resigned.
That being said, if only many other forms of unethical behavior in politics could be considered as “bad” as hiring a prostitute or other sexual misdeeds. I’m talking about the various forms of legal though unethical influence-peddling and lobbying that goes on(of course there are various acts that take place that are illegal but they figure out ways to get away with it anyway). In my book, Spitzer, arguably one of the worst governors NY has ever had, is a near saint compared to the war criminals Bush and Cheney. For all his faults, Spitzer as attorney general led an almost unprecedented “crusade” against white collar criminals, especially on Wall Street. Previously, most law enforcement officials didn’t pursue them as much as they pursued petty street criminals. It seems that Spitzer wanted to continue that “crusade” as governor.
From day one, Joe Bruno, NY’s top Republican in the state senate was Spitzer’s main adversary. I believe that Bruno is even sleazier than Spitzer, but probably better at hiding it. The FBI has been investigating Bruno for years now, especially his connections to big business political donors and friends. Bruno may be hiding things that are probably far worse than anything Spitzer ever did, in my opinion. Certain things have leaked out, but nothing too “serious” so far. It is interesting to see how the media reports on this. The stories about Bruno’s alleged corruption have all but vanished in the media frenzy surrounding Spitzer. According to the mainstream press in NY, Spitzer is unquestionably the devil, and while they have stories about how Bruno will inherit the powers though not the title of lieutenant-governor(especially if Paterson goes out of state or is incapacitated, which would make Bruno acting governor) there is almost nothing in the news about the alleged corruption surrounding Bruno or the FBI investigating him(none of it involves sex to my knowledge so it can’t be THAT “bad”). Corporate media at its finest!
Aside from this, I truly hope this Spitzer mess somehow hurts the war-monger Hillary. At least she is down one super-delegate. Unfortunately, David Paterson, who appears to be a true progressive, supports the conservative war-monger Hillary. The main reason for this is because she’s a NY senator, so it’s about “loyalty”. Otherwise, I’m impressed with Paterson’s record, and hope he does not disappoint.
While I am not “pro-Obama”, I find Obama more likable and a little less “corporate” than Hillary. For those anti-Hillary folks, let us all hope Spitzer in his own special way has put a dent in Hillary’s re-energized campaign.
“The Democratic Party is rapidly dying out on the national level and neither Clinton nor Obama are any help.”
What the h3ll are you talking about? The Democrats are growing sharply this cycle judging by turnout. Record numbers are coming out to vote in Primaries, that’s real growth. And much of it has been directly attributable to Obama’s campaign, registering new voters and getting them fired up. The Party is positioned to sweep the November election returning a D WhiteHouse and a D Congress, hopefully with a 65% majority to override any GOP tricks. This is not a party on the ropes.
“The Nation and the elites working there think they know what is best for the rest of us.”
May I suggest that if you find yourself to the left of John Nichols and The Nation, you are somewhere way out in left field.
Can any of you concerned readers explain: WHY IS NO ONE CHECKING THE “MAJOR” CANDIDATES’ VOTING RECORDS?????
Nichols doesn’t give any info about Paterson’s view of fighting the banks, corporate thievery and bread and butter economic issues. Does anyone know?
Spitzer was in a class by himself, taking on the behemoths most politicians court for campaign cash. I like Obama but he’s no Eliot Spitzer when it comes to fighting corporations. This issue is of such overriding importance in these hard economic times, that it’s my primary concern (apart from the war).
What should be fully disclosed is that over 10 percent of the campaign contributions to Columbia University faculty member David Paterson’s “Paterson for NY” committee during his 2006 campaign for Lt. Governor came from Eliot Spitzer, Bernard Spitzer and Silda Wall (Spitzer’s wife). On March 3, 2006, for instance Eliot Spitzer and Bernard Spitzer each gave a $16,000 individual contribution to Paterson’s campaign; and later in the year Silda Wall gave an additional campaign contribution of $16,000 to Columbia University faculty member Paterson’s campaign. Of the $427,372 in campaign contributions that Paterson’s committee collected when he ran for Lt. Governor, $48,000 thus came from Eliot Spitzer and his family, personally. So why should we assume that Paterson is now going to act independently of his primary financial backer for state office, Eliot Spitzer?
What also should be disclosed is that when Columbia University faculty member Paterson ran for the state legislature in 2004, The Nation’s editor, Katrina vanden Heuvel contributed $1,000 to his “Friends of David Paterson” campaign on April 24, 2004 and The Nation editor’s father, William vanden Heuvel, contributed $1,000 to the “Friends of David Paterson” campaign on April 12, 2004.
Yet as a legistor,Columbia University faculty member Paterson has apparently done nothing to stop Columbia University from expanding its campus north of W. 125th Street into West Harlem, despite the objections of neighborhood tenant activists and the local community board which voted against Columbia’s proposed new expansion project (that will drive 5,000 more tenants out of the surrounding community).