Marty: I’m Not a Kicker Off’er

My learned colleague at the bar, “Attorney”, makes the correct observation that there was nothing “unethical or improper” (at least in the sense of violating any statute, regulation or professional canon) in Senator Connor’s attempt to have Mr. Diamondstone removed from the ballot. However, I want to go beyond the question of rights under the existing law to the more important issue of whether that law, as it exists, is good. I think not.

My political philosophy could be described as “default libertarian”; that is, given the option of a rule that limits a person’s freedom to choose as against allowing that freedom, and all else being equal, I would select the latter. The phrase “all else being equal” is an important qualifier. What would pull me from my default position could, for example, be a situation in which there is great asymmetry between the knowledge of the person offering a choice and the person making it, and the consequences for the person making the choice of a “wrong” decision are serious. Pure food laws are a classic example. I don’t have the wherewithal or the inclination to test the contents of a jar of marinara sauce for botulism before I put it on my pasta.

To the extent that election laws establish barriers to candidacy, they limit the choices available to voters. While the consequences of making a “wrong” choice in voting may be serious—I would be disheartened to discover that someone who had persuaded me that she shared my philosophy and whom I helped to elect was actually a Marxist-Leninist or neo-Nazi—the nature of political campaigns and the media scrutiny they attract assures the minimization of any asymmetry of information concerning a candidate. This extends, for example, to questions of residency. Where a person lives, and for how long, is generally readily knowable. If it isn’t, that fact is also available (think of Senator McCain). For this reason, I fall back on my default position, which is, “Let the voter decide.” Ideally, in my opinion, election laws should essentially confine themselves to three things: (1) controlling the balloting and tabulating process to ensure fairness and accuracy; (2) regulating the exercise of the franchise (I should only be allowed to vote once in an election, and only in the district in which I’m registered); and (3) dealing with such informational asymmetries as exist by, for example, requiring disclosure of how a campaign is financed. The one exception I would make is to establish a minimal barrier to entry, such as a petition requirement limited to, say, 500 signatures , and with stringent rules limiting the disqualification of signatures, in order to keep the ballot from being swamped by frivolous candidacies.

I’m frankly confused by my colleague’s second paragraph. First, s/he seems to have fallen for the common misconception that “Long Island” begins and ends at the border between Queens and Nassau Counties. When someone here in Brooklyn says “I’m going to Long Island”, I always ask what bridge or tunnel they plan to traverse. Getting, however, to what I think is the point of that paragraph: yes, state senatorial elections in the ‘burbs are perhaps more meaningful than in the City in that they are more likely to determine control of the Senate, while whoever wins the Democratic primary in this district is fairly certain to prevail in the general election and therefore not have any effect on the party balance. However, it doesn’t follow that there’s nothing at stake in the choice between Connor and Squadron. While there appears to be substantial agreement between them on most issues (although I would suggest that Connor’s commitment to such matters as election law and districting reform has a bit of a “born again” quality), they do, for example, disagree on the use of luxury housing to finance Brooklyn Bridge Park. More importantly, I believe that they differ significantly in that Connor is steeped in the traditions of New York State government, traditions that I believe have evolved in a way that is unfortunate for the polity, while Squadron is not.

Attorney, thanks for your response. I know that the district in question is half in lower Manhattan and half on Long Island (the Brooklyn part, that is). Indeed, that’s been an advantage for Connor, in that any challenger would likely be known on one side of the water and not on the other, while incumbency means he’s well-known on both.

I do take issue with your assertion that Brooklyn Heights is part of Manhattan “for all intents and purposes”. Shortly after I moved here, in 1983, I invited a friend who lives on the Upper West Side to come over after work and have a drink with me on the roof of my building. I live in the 12 story “Breukelen” at 57 Montague, which has a roof deck commanding a very nice view of the East River (actually a strait–sorry, but I’m a bug on geography) and lower Manhattan. As we sipped our wine, she said, “It seems really nice to have that stretch of water between where you live and where you work.” While most of the people who live here work in Manhattan, I think they have chosen to live here because this is a community with a small town sense about it–a place where you get to know your neighbors, not just on your floor or in your building, but throughout the neighborhood. While I’ve maintained work and friendship relationships in Manhattan over the years, I’ve come to think of myself primarily as a Brooklynite, immersed in the community through church, civic organizations, and my volunteer work tutoring high school students in East Brooklyn and Bushwick.

As to Marty’s “progressive” record, I agree that he’s been good on a lot of issues, such as civil rights for gays and lesbians, and women’s choice, and I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt as to being sincere rather than just seeking to appeal to a significant part of his constituency. However, I believe Squadron is equally good on these issues. As I said in my initial comment, however, I do doubt his sincerity in wanting to make serious reforms to legislative and election processes. Anyone who has been part of a system for thirty years has to have developed a level of comfort with the way things are done, or not done, within that system. Granted, Squadron alone can’t change the system, but having never been part of it, he has no reason to want to preserve any part of it.

I like Marty. I think it would be delightful to sit down and have a drink with him, listen to his war stories, and his observations about life in general. He would probably tell me that, despite my being roughly his age, I’m still naive about the ways of the world and the intractability of human nature. Still, I think we need, and can benefit from, a change. It will take more than a Squadron, perhaps a whole brigade, to shake Albany to its foundations as it must be shaken. Nevertheless, I only live in, and can vote in, one senatorial district. Therefore, I will continue to work for, and cast my vote for, Dan, and hope that voters in other districts will also vote for insurgent candidates.