A piece on the 1965 breakdown in the New York State Senate (h/t Andy Arthur) includes a line which explains the past few weeks, if not decades, in Albany pretty well:
On the morning Espada appeared to make his coup official, I was on my way to interview a former New York politico, a big mover in the 1970s. I informed him that Espada was now a heartbeat away from the governorship and he told me a simple rule of New York politics: "If someone is given the opportunity to increase his power, he will take it, every time. No question."
For reformers who want to distribute power more evenly, widen the conversation, and allow separation of powers to work the way it's taught in civics class, the past few years of this maxim have been hard to stomach. We've seen Republicans tighten their grip on the Senate's rules and resources to ensure their dominance, while Democrats in the Assembly have built overwhelming power but don't seem inclined to share it, even across their own membership.
This year's collapsing Senate ran according to those rules exactly. Both Democrats and Republicans were willing to negotiate with the Gang of Four because they wanted the power of the majority. Once in power, the Democrats suddenly stalled on actually implementing the rules reform they'd wanted for decades, even voting down the very set of reforms they'd previously supported. The Republicans got a dramatic lesson in what it feels like to be out of power under a regime much like the one they'd had before.
In the coup, the Republicans were happy to negotiate with people they'd earlier denounced as criminals, so long as the power shifted their direction. Democrats were able to bring back Monserrate, I think because he realized that his power depended on local Democratic party institutions. Pedro Espada, however, is independent of that, and saw plenty of power, at least for the short term, to back him up.
How can anything good come of this deeply cynical endeavor?
For the first time since 1965, we have multiple groups with a substantial claim on power. Instead of a single power center, we have two at least, with a third (Espada) taking advantage of the possibilities that creates.
In the short term, this is terrible. We've all heard of legislation getting delayed, the reputation of the Senate being tarnished, and so on.
In the long term, though, this blind pursuit of power creates an opportunity for compromises that would make it easier for the Senate to stay multi-polar permanently. The hard question is whether either side can imagine a multi-polar Senate, or can think far enough ahead to see how it might help them.
For Democrats, demographic dominance awaits, but so does the reality of being an unsteady coalition. Distributing power might well seem like treason, but it's also the best way to ensure that the fractures within our party don't bring our plans to a crashing halt. It could ensure continuing power.
For Republicans, the look on Dean Skelos' face isn't merely a pout - it's the face of a guy who couldn't imagine losing an election, whose pursuit of power blinded him to the possibility of losing it. It's the face of a guy who's saying "Damn, I guess we really should have set precedent beyond redecorating the minority meeting room."
