Get PJ Media on your Apple

Ron Radosh

The Dangers of a De Blasio Victory in New York City’s Mayoral Race

September 27th, 2013 - 4:47 pm

As the mayoral campaign of Bill de Blasio moves on, the revelation that the likely victor was a Sandinista supporter as a young man in the 1980s has begun to be noticed. It made de Blasio actually have to respond to his Republican opponent, Joe Lhota, who had condemned him as a “Marxist.” But instead of saying something to the effect that he was young, idealistic, and perhaps wrong about Nicaragua, he openly defended his positions.

In an interview with Capital, a Manhattan-based publication, de Blasio argued that U.S. policies in Central America in the ’80s “were wrong,” and that he was only working with Jesuits and Catholics, with much of the work “done by nuns.” Well, there are nuns and then there are nuns. And de Blasio, by his own account, thinks he was on the right side, since those supported by the U.S. in the Reagan and Bush 41 years were regimes “very unfair to their own people.”

In standing firm in defense of his old positions, de Blasio has revealed how little he has learned.  The truth is that the Catholics he supported in Nicaragua — including the nuns — were part of the regime-created “Popular Church,” an attempt to fuse Catholicism with Marxism in support of the Sandinista Front (FSLN), and were advocates of “liberation theology,” popular among the Catholic left in the region in those years. The regular Church, as in Poland, condemned the Sandinistas and was a strong opponent of the drift to totalitarianism.

Today, in City Journal, my old friend Sol Stern has perhaps the single best article on what a de Blasio victory might mean for New York City, and for the nation.  As Stern writes, “Bill de Blasio was outed by the New York Times and then proudly stood his ground, politically and ideologically”:

De Blasio’s untroubled response to the Times’s revelations speaks volumes about New York’s rapidly changing political culture. It’s not that the next mayor will try to establish socialism or bring Sandinista ideas about the class struggle to government agencies. But de Blasio’s ascendency, perhaps even more than Obama’s, marks another step in the evolution of the Democratic party and big-city liberalism toward a twenty-first-century version of the old Popular Front. De Blasio’s City Hall will be open for business to each element of a self-styled “progressive” coalition of “inclusion.” No group or individual will be deemed too far to the left as long as they jump on the de Blasio bandwagon. Lining up to receive their fair share of the spoils will be the old Acorn organization, now renamed New York Communities for Change; the far-left Working Families Party; the United Federation of Teachers and other municipal unions; the radical Service Employees International Union, including the former Communist-led health-care workers’ union Local 1199; the civil liberties and homeless lobbies; and, of course, the onetime racial arsonist Al Sharpton, now posing as a wise elder and political power broker. To varying degrees, each will have a place at the municipal trough. Meanwhile, at the other end of City Hall—thanks to the successful efforts of the Working Families Party in many local races this year—the newly elected city council will tilt further left and will dole out even more cash to radical and activist community groups.”

Given that New York City is the financial center of our country, and hence important nationally, if the dark scenario laid out by Stern as a possible result of a de Blasio victory comes true, it bodes ill for our country as a whole. It is as important a development on the Left as was Scott Walker’s victory over the Left in Wisconsin.

To confirm how much the national Left is moving to support the de Blasio campaign, look no further than this article at Huffington Post by the New Left’s main 1960s leader and author of the Port Huron Statement that announced SDS to the nation, Tom Hayden. He likes de Blasio for one reason. His candidacy, Hayden writes, “should hugely excite the progressive base in New York politics after a long period of Republican rule. De Blasio did not leave his radical youth behind either; in the present day, he is a leading critic of stop-and-frisk and the massive economic inequalities dramatized by Occupy Wall Street.”

Hayden clearly sees de Blasio as a kindred spirit, exemplified by Hayden’s own turn to Democratic Party politics in California, where, for a time, he won a seat on the state Senate and seemed to be grooming himself for a national political role. Hayden hopes that his candidacy will mean the “awakening of a Left which often derides electoral politics.” His victory, he predicts, will “put progressive politics [read Marxist or socialist instead of progressive] on the central stage of national media coverage and debate,” and will help others like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, the avowed socialist senator from Vermont.

Oh, yes, and he hopes it will give The Nation magazine “much more mainstream impact in the political culture.” I would add that the magazine already has far too much, as its editor Katrina vanden Heuvel is a regular on the major TV networks, and often a position it takes editorially appears soon after in the editorial pages of the New York Times.

Hayden’s only regret is that the action-oriented anarchists would engage in working for de Blasio and not merely be content with chanting, wearing those horrendous masks, and smashing windows. Hayden, of course, forgets how many of them are undoubtedly inspired by Hayden’s own advocacy of such a course during the infamous Chicago Democratic Convention of 1968, when he led the riots and regularly incited the crowd to act and not just march.

So Hayden ends with what he hopes will be the end result of a de Blasio victory: “A new New Left is rising.”

Whether you call it the new Popular Front uniting unabashed Marxists, revolutionary activists, and liberal Democrats, as Stern does, or a “new New Left,” as Hayden does, it threatens the well-being of our entire country. We may not live in New York City, but we cannot ignore what is happening there. Joe Lhota is not running an inspiring campaign so far, and he has made mistakes. The odds against him are high, and he is likely to lose.  However, he deserves whatever support conservatives outside New York City can give him.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Diana West's book, "American Betrayal", is as convincing as it is well researched.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
de Blasio is no more radical than our president, who enjoys strong support in NYC. They will elect him and get what they deserve.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (25)
All Comments   (25)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
NYC, Detroit here we come!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
NYC is funded by the finance industry. That's where their tax revenue comes from: Investment Banks: local, regional and international banks: hedge funds, etc. The people who run these companies are not Marxists. What if they just waltz out of NYC and set up in CT, NJ or elsewhere? Fun to watch this unfold.

In the meantime I gave $'s to my Harvard Business School section mate, Joe Lhota and I live in Montana.

Like others here I see NYC electing this idiot instead of Lhota and it merely reflects what I felt back in 1966 when I left my hometown of NYC to join the military. I had no intention of ever going back to NYC and glad I didn't.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
As far as Detroit is concerned, I believe the best move would be to open the city to homesteading. Let anyone who wants to claim a chunk of the city to do so and gain title to it after a few years of improvements and showing they can protect it.

But I think people are missing a bet on New York. Electing de Blasio could be great! Just think back to all the great movies that were made in or about New York in the '70s. We could be headed for another Golden Age of film making. I added some other thoughts here: http://www.larryagrant.com/?q=node/32
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Diana West's book, "American Betrayal", is as convincing as it is well researched.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
It appears ,that the communists are indeed winning by rotting from within. The alternative to the candidates for mayor weren't that appetizing. Maybe the sexter was thrown in and stayed in as a red herring. My grandaughter just graduated from Fordham and used to talk about feeling safe there. guess I'm glad she finished when she did.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
First off, the city is now full of people who don't remember how bad it was before Guiliani was elected. They gotten used to clean, safe streets, and take it as a given. They will quickly learn, when the 70's come back with a vengeance. Most importantly, it's no longer necessary for financial businesses to center themselves in NYC, they could move tomorrow to somewhere friendlier. And the left should understand what's at stake here. If they pull another Detroit, and collapse the greatest city in the nation; they are through as a political force. No one will trust them with a lemonade stand.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The 70's will come back to the NY metro area with a vengeance. I remember growing up there that whole sections of the NJ waterfront were considered anarchic. The NYPD would post an officer at the entrance to Central Park closest to Columbia University and warn people not to enter, as they could not guarantee their safety. Parts of the South Bronx were so dangerous, the cops would not go there. The whole city was a cesspool of corruption, violent crime, drug abuse and litter.
I doubt NY'ers or their counterparts in the metro area will figure out what to do in just 1 term for DeBlasio. Their agony will likely last a full decade or more before they wake up.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
First, there is no way that de Blasio will lose this election. Leaving aside brainwashing and endemic vote fraud; if nothing else, Bloomberg's early brief use of the Republican party as cover for his own ambition has ruined that brand in NYC enough that no Republican can win.

Yes, it will be catastrophic for New York City, and maybe for Cuomo's 5 Year Plan for New York State. And there is nothing that can be done about it.

It *will* deleteriously affect the country. Those with some intelligence and the means will leave NYC, and their presence will bring the same plagues to their new homes. Can't help that, but there is some hope that de Blasio will try to impose some sort of barriers to leaving freely so as to stem the outflow. Surely he has learned something from his time in Cuba and study of other Marxist paradises.

The thing is, given that the Left is busily and actively destroying the whole country, with the collaboration of the Institutional Republican Party, even though the collapse of NYC will hurt the rest of the country we have bigger worries and things to deal with. They are on their own.

Yeah, whatever their local iteration of Detroit will be is in New York City's future. But it is what it is, because that is what the bulk of New Yorkers insist on it.

From what I understand, out of the 8 1/3 million people in New York City, a few thousand people and companies pay 40-50% of the taxes. If you or your company are in that group, have half a lick of sense, and ideology does not govern your financial decisions; contingency preparations to shift out of New York City, and New York State should have been made. Now is the time to start activating those plans. When New Jersey makes more financial sense than New York, surely it is time to leave.

For those who stay; held by ideology, family ties, or inertia, they are going to get what they voted for good and hard.

I know that the media will not go for it, because anywhere run by a Democrat/Leftist/Socialist by definition has to be presented as perfect; but I see the potential for a reality series about people trying to escape from New York.

Subotai Bahadur
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I keep hearing this "institutional" Republican Party mean. What are the Republicans supposed do when only control one house of Congress? When you make statements like this I begin to suspect that you and those like you are really a Democratic Party false flag operation designed to cause a split in the Republican Party. It's the only way the Democrats can take back the House. So please tell me which side are you on? Either that or you have no idea how Congress is set up under the Constitution.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
OK, first some background. Active in the Republican party for decades until January 2, 2013 when, because of the last straw of Boehner’s surrender on the Fiscal Cliff, I changed to unaffiliated. I would have done it the day it happened, January 1, but the County Clerk’s office was closed for New Years. When I did change, the Clerk’s staff was shocked because I was rather well known as a Republican.

I go back a ways. I was a delegate for George H. W. Bush in 1980. He asked me personally. I admit that I made a mistake. I did not think that the country would vote for Ronald Reagan. I admit I was wrong, and am glad of it.

I have been elected a delegate to the State convention every cycle except for the year I lost a son and did no politics at all. I was one of the few crazies who ran the Bush campaign in my county in 1988. I say 'crazy', because that is not easy. Our goal was to have a margin of victory in our county, greater than Dukakis’ margin of victory in the Democrat stronghold of Pueblo. We did. From the mid 1980’s – mid 1990’s I was doing local conservative talk radio, and during the campaign I wrote, produced, and performed a series of local radio commercials that drove the enemy nuts.

From 9/11 to 2010 I had an email newsletter on political and military affairs that spread rather far. I have a thank you letter from the then commander of the Marines in Iraq, who appreciated it. Due to medical problems in my family, I could not keep up with the newsletter, but I had started commenting on blogs, including Wretchard’s BELMONT CLUB from long before the merger with PJM, so I dropped the newsletter. While I don’t turn up at Mr. Radosh’s that often, I do have a track record all over PJM, and elsewhere, under this nom d' blog.

I was a speaker at the first TEA Party rally in our town, and probably got my name on “the list” again right there. I pointed out the non-local types across the street taking our pictures with long-lensed cameras. Still active in the TEA Party, the Preparedness Group, and in Support Our Sheriffs; which backs the 54 [out of 62] County Sheriffs who are suing our Democrat governor and legislature in Federal Court over the anti-2nd Amendment laws passed last session. Also supported the successful recall of two Democrat state senators who were behind the laws.

Y’all can accept the above as being true, or not. Your choice. As I said, I have a certain track record at PJM, and if anyone thinks I am a Democrat false flag, feel free to jump in.

Now with that out of the way, let us deal with “Institutional” Republicans. I started using that descriptor a couple of years ago as I saw the split. Consider them as the elected and appointed bureaucracy and consultants that actually run things and decides candidates [yeah, I know, see below], policy, and tactics. This is as opposed to the rank and file, that I refer to as the Base. The Base is largely Conservative [see the poll released yesterday] and there was up until recently a considerable overlap between TEA Party and the Republican Conservative Base. That overlap is declining, and after the last few days I expect it to disappear soon.

Like any party, the Republicans is composed of interest groups with different goals. In the main, the Base favors smaller government, lower taxes and regulations, less government intrusion and regulation. The Institutionals, who run the party, are closer ideologically, politically, and financially to the Democrats than to their own Base. They are Statists who despite the official rhetoric, support more and more centralized control over everything. They make common cause with the Democrats against the interests of their own base. They have contempt for Conservatives and are not loath to publicly express it.

They are playing a game of inside the Beltway power and graft. The Base is trying to save the country.

HAVE TO BREAK THIS IN TWO PARTS- End Part One
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
BEGINNING OF PART TWO

Having had to explain myself, I cannot take up all the faults of the Institutionals in detail in Mr. Radosh’s space; but in short form what we are dealing with from the Institutionals are:

1) a refusal to stand and fight the Left over anything. Every Continuing Resolution, Debt Ceiling, Fiscal Cliff, Sequester, etc., several times a year; the Institutionals promise loudly to stand and fight. And for years, every single time they have meekly surrendered without a fight. They have totally yielded the constitutional power of the purse.
2) A refusal to defend the Constitution. As one of many cases available, Obama routinely modifies Obamacare at will. The last delay of the Employer Mandate was by a posting on a White House website, not even a formal document. As detestable as Obamacare is, it is a signed US statute. Nowhere in the Article II of the Constitution does it give the President power to choose what parts of the law to enforce at whim or to amend a statute by decree. Twice, since 1973, the Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that the President has to follow the statutes as they are written once they are signed into law. Boehner does not need Harry Reid’s permission to file an action in the DC Federal Court on behalf of the House [remember, Republicans hold that] demanding that the Courts order the Executive Branch to follow the law. That same action can be filed on a number of different issues where Obama had ruled by decree.
3) A refusal to hold the Executive to account for illegal acts. From Fast and Furious, through Benghazi, to the IRS, to the NSA spying, to the functional establishment of a police state. Yeah, Issa does a couple of small hearings. But the House [remember, Republicans hold that] can establish Special Investigating Committees with full subpoena power. And if the Executive Branch refuses to cooperate, then they can go to court to enforce the subpoenas, and impeach officials who do not cooperate. No, impeachment is not removal. But if half the Administration is getting impeached or indicted for Contempt of Congress and refusal to disclose their records, THAT is fighting back and is something the public can understand.
4) Open warfare against Conservatives. You ever notice that no matter how often a “Republican” ends up backing the Democrats, the Institutionals will defend him/her? And yet if a Conservative stands up to fight the Democrats, the full weight of the party comes down on them. If Conservatives run for office, it is over the objection of the party machinery. Here in Colorado, we have two Democrat Senators, and a Democrat governor. Both are in office because when the Base-supported Conservatives [and in the cases of one Senator and the governor, TEA Party] won the Republican nomination fair and square by the rules; the party refused to support them, and in the TEA Party cases collaborated with the Democrats to defeat them. A pattern we see nationwide.
5) Vote fraud. The Democrats have made our electoral system a sham. Democrat areas routinely have more registered voters than people, and more cast votes than registered voters; all for the Democrat candidates. If an area is in transition, ballots are “found” outside the legal chain of custody for weeks if necessary to ensure a Democrat victory. Yet, somehow, it is impossible to get ballots to our deployed military and back in time to be counted. The Institutional Republican Party is in collusion with the Democrats on this, in that they have signed a Federal Court Consent Decree agreeing NEVER to oppose Democrat vote fraud anywhere. See US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Case No. 09-4615 [for text http://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/rnc-v-dnc.pdf ]

I could go on for pages more. I do not think that we have time any longer to have to fight both the Left, and their Institutional Republican allies of the permanent governing class. If we are to save the Constitution, Conservatives have to leave the Institutional Republican Party. It is too late to try to take it over and reform it. We may not win, but at least we have a chance to fight. The Institutionals will only lead us to destruction with no hope of victory.

Your mileage probably does vary.

Subotai Bahadur
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I say bring it on. NYC will collapse into the same kind of chaos as Detroit and Chicago and it will happen in a heart beat. The big banks will leave as will most of the tax base. Gang violence will escalate and drive many liberal New Yorkers toward the political center as they find out what happens to a disarmed population.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
New York may elect de Blasio, but unlike John Lindsay or David Dinkins, he won't have thew luxury of imposing his ideology, presiding over the decline and then telling voters nothing can be done about reversing the decline, because the past two mayors showed New York could be made livable with the right law enforcement policies in place.

That was the line peddled by the left from 1966-93, and New York's saving grace over the past century has been when the Democratic mayor screws things up enough in the city, the voters will replace them (unlike, say, other liberal cities like Chicago and San Francisco, where voters value their ideological purity more than having a city with huge 'no-go' areas for the general public).
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All