This was a dangerous situation. Wealthy New Yorkers are the overwhelming majority of the city’s tax base. About 1 percent of people pay nearly 50 percent of the taxes. If they did not move back, there would be serious economic consequences. If they adapted to working from home, the residential and commercial real estate markets would suffer. If they did not frequent the retail stores, the business environment would continue to suffer.
There’s no silver bullet. I said we were going to accelerate the Reimagine New York Commission to revitalize the economy. We’ll start with some large public works that show a different future, a brighter future for New York, to give the private sector some confidence that New York City has a long-term survivability and viability.
—
MY RELATIONSHIP WITH the New York City mayor had always been problematic, to use a word. The New York City tabloids loved the drama and never really covered the substance of our relationship. First, there’s always a tension between the mayor and the governor. It goes back to Rockefeller and Mayor Lindsay, my father and Ed Koch, Pataki and Mayor Giuliani. It is almost inherent in the relationship. It is like the natural distrust with in-laws. New York City mayors have always bristled at their lack of authority and autonomy. Almost all major actions require state approval. The state is responsible for all major financial decisions: public transportation, tax increases, education. The city is the creature of state law, and state law governs. The mayor really has exclusive control only of fire, sanitation, and police. This is true with every city in the state, but New York City mayors have always found it more annoying because New York City is an enormous international city. I understand the tension because I, as governor, am subject to the federal government and its superseding jurisdiction, as well as the political whims of President Trump, and that is truly infuriating.
My relationship with Mayor Bill de Blasio is even more complicated. I’ve known him for many years, and we were personal friends. One of de Blasio’s first jobs was working for me at the Department of Housing and Urban Development when I was secretary and he was a regional representative for New York. But now there are real issues between us. It isn’t personal; it’s philosophical, as they say.
At sixty-two years old, I am watching the clock, and I know that Democrats have to score more points, more quickly, if we are to win the game, and I am more convinced that we must win the game if America is to survive. After a lifetime in the crusade and frustrated with our lack of progress and the insanity and pain of a Trump administration, I am out of patience. And I think this country is out of patience. So for me, the philosophical question now is, how do we win?
My priority is to make sure Democrats are doing everything we need to do to be successful and to minimize our own vulnerabilities. My philosophical issue is with Democrats who make promises and too often fail to perform and set back our progress. We need a dramatic reboot, and it must start with blunt honesty and a clear philosophy. I now call myself a progressive Democrat. That’s because nobody uses the word “liberal” anymore, because “liberal” became a dirty word, so the Democratic Party chose a new label.
But what does the term “progressive” mean? “Progressive” is not a new label. It goes back to the early 1900s. FDR and Al Smith ran as progressives. In modern usage, the term “progressive” is vague and also overused. So I distinguish between “real progressives” and “faux progressives.” A real progressive advocates, achieves, and implements intelligent change on an expedited basis. Real progressives advocate for principles that are feasible, constructive, and intelligent. To be a successful real progressive official, you need to actually achieve progress: accomplishments matter. You can’t just say you are a black belt in karate. You have to achieve it. My definition of “faux progressives” is officials who believe being a progressive is merely a function of advocacy and posturing. Faux-progressive officials advocate but never accomplish. Faux progressives frustrate the public by raising false expectations and by failing to improve matters. Faux progressives actually hinder the progressive movement and aid the conservative movement by reinforcing public cynicism that government change never happens and positive results are never the outcome. Conservatives win when government fails to make positive change.
Let me explain. Most Americans would agree with progressive aspirations. They agreed with FDR’s and JFK’s and Mario Cuomo’s visions. But they would also agree with the conservatives’ emphasis on reality, feasibility, and practicality. This tension leaves the American people essentially saying, “Yes, I would like to do these good things, but I have doubts about whether government can actually achieve them.”
My model of real progressivism is to affirm the aspiration and prove it can be achieved—to show government can work to realize the aspirational goals we seek:
Government can pass a law allowing same-sex couples to marry without interfering with anyone else’s individual rights.
Government can raise the minimum wage without hurting the economy for anyone else.
Government can build affordable housing without destroying the neighborhood.
Government can take on large construction projects and complete them on time and on budget.
Government can build bridges and airports and roads and convention centers.
Government can achieve our aspirations both in theory and in practice.
I believe once progressives demonstrate that capacity, they will vindicate the
