Is Bill de Blasio done?

[The_Doctor]

He needs to give Scott Walker a call tonight and ask him for advice. And then tomorrow morning he needs to smash the police union.

Public sector unions are OK in some cases but aren't OK in other cases? Police unions are doing the same thing every other public sector union does - advocating for their membership. Quite aggressively, too.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander too.

[The_Doctor]

He needs to breakup the police union, bad.

Leftists supporting union busting.  Who'd have thought? FDR is rolling in his grave.

Don't be an idiot:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2013/aug/13/scott-walker/Did-FDR-oppose-collective-bargaining-for-governmen/

This is interesting as a statement. Most unions with collective bargaining power left are public sector unions. This statement, applied to modern days, means that effectively, the days of collective bargaining would be over, if we stripped public unions of collective bargaining (which I strongly support).

One of the few times I would say I agree with that Man Who Was in the White House.

[The_Doctor]

Don't worry fascists. Looks like de Blasio has been brought to heel. The cop coup has succeeded.

I do not see any concrete sign that de Blasio will back off his efforts and is just trying to evade public heat. I want to see him concretely pledging to support the officers in future cases and building a much more supportive relationship with the NYPD. They are his charges and he is their commander. He undercut them in the campaign and as Mayor. If he changes, he can reform them (through a mutually agreeable process).

If he doesn't, there could be further incidents, which could endanger his re-election. New York City does have a good history of electing Republican mayors.

[The_Doctor]

I agree it's premature and silly to forecast the next election. Who saw Bloomberg eking out a 51-46% win in NYC in 2009? Nobody, certainly.

The thing I'm focusing on what de Blasio should do, IMO. He gets no benefit in a protracted battle with law enforcement. Let me be a bit broad for a second. Any elected official has to work with institutional forces in their city, and the NYPD is an institutional force in New York City, as it is in any major city. The Mayor has to deal with that and respect that institution. It's an established institution with considerable political power, like any other political and public institution in an ubran area. (Teachers' unions are another example of this, by the way).

A costly battle with the NYPD costs de Blasio a lot and doesn't reap him much in the way of benefits. Maybe it will secure him re-election, maybe it will weaken the NYPD, as an institution. There is a reason, however, he should cooperate and work to reform the NYPD (if he sees necessary reforms; I don't necessarily agree that a few bad cops amounts to a needed wholesale reform in the NYPD). The simple truth is that law enforcement is going to be necessary in any major urban center and especially one where poorer communities exist.

They will always be necessary to the city's success, and ultimately, the public - no matter what - will broadly vote for law and order over civil liberty. Period. People don't want the freedom to resist arrest successfully as much as they want the freedom to be safe walking to the 7-11. Any indignation over the violation of civil liberties is trumped by the desire to be safe. You can argue with that impulse; good liberals have been trying to motivate people to embrace civil liberties over national/local security (and failed spectacularly, almost every single time). The ultimate point is that people want security, at almost any cost.

This is the essential human condition, and why de Blasio must negotiate and cooperate with the NYPD.

[The_Doctor]

Tweed, sorry for taking a bit to respond. Here we go.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

(a) Yes, I agree de Blasio has authority over the NYPD, by virtue of his position. No disagreement over that. I can agree, with New York City now a minority majority city, there is an opening (within the city) for de Blasio to exploit Lynch's comments. But as I said, "There is a reason, however, he should cooperate and work to reform the NYPD ... The simple truth is that law enforcement is going to be necessary in any major urban center and especially one where poorer communities exist." You here look at the political upside for de Blasio, but from an institutional standpoint, de Blasio should actively work with and cooperate with the NYPD. This is a much better route to his goal of reform and yet winning support from the NYPD in the process. They can protest, they can actively cause negative media coverage, and they can undermine his administration, legally and politically. And that will have an effect.

(b) I disagree with this. They won't hate him no matter what, not if de Blasio actively repairs the relationship and understands the lessons gained from this latest episode. He's run a campaign and an administration that hasn't been friendly to law enforcement (read "De Blasio's nightmare" by POLITICO this morning for a better overview of that). The thing is, his administration has been terrible at relations with NYPD and PBA. This is bad for him politically, and institutionally.

If de Blasio somehow flipped to the right on this issue, hypothetically, it would be interesting (assuming it was accepted at face value). I don't think politically that he would be hurt. We've seen liberals become hawks on law and order - and still win elections (notably Bill Clinton). Becoming pro-law enforcement and coopting that issue has never backfired on anyone if done right. I don't mean right like what happened in Ferguson, I mean, continuing the broken glass theory of crime fighting, securing local communities, and supporting cops more openly.

In fact, de Blasio doesn't have to do much beyond improving his rhetoric and working to improve outreach to cops. This is really the simplest thing for him and he needs to do it, as I've said, for institutional and political reasons.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nobody believes he's an anarchist. What people currently believe is that de Blasio is far more hostile to cops than his predecessors. He shouldn't be. It's one thing to be a reformer; it's another to be hostile to cops. I'm saying you can walk and chew gum at the same time metaphorically. Nobody would disagree (except a few people) that some reforms wouldn't help the system (warranted or not).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

People who vote for law and order tend to be a majority. Even African Americans don't have a majority in polling who think cops are anti-minorities. (The poll I saw yesterday morning on CNN said 37-25-25 or something along these lines on if they trust cops/believe they do a good or bad job). de Blasio should bear that in mind and operate along a more pro-cop line. I'm saying, at heart, people don't care about civil liberties; they care about being safe.

[The_Doctor]

If he doesn't, there could be further incidents, which could endanger his re-election.

Are you suggesting that NYC police will go around creating "incidents" in order to endanger his re-election? If yes, do you realize you are saying that there are criminals on the police force? If no, I do not quite understand what you mean. Could you elaborate?

They can do political activities that are legal, and undermine the mayor. They can protest, they can plant negative media stories, they can use social media while off duty. There is a ton of ways that the NYPD can express negative sentiments about the mayor while off duty. Their leaders have even more tools and can make life very difficult for de Blasio.

And given their role, they're going to get an outsized amount of attention from the public. And consequently, they can use that attention to shape the narrative about the de Blasio administration.

[The_Doctor]

If you want a tipping point in De Blasio's tenure, it might come next week with his decision whether or not to reappoint Judge Laura Johnson, who has made it clear she intends to keep springing protestors who attack cops with no bail.

Why is this an inflection point? You make it sound pivotal - and I understand, prima facie. But I'm not sure how well it would be remembered.

I don't know much, not being a New Yorker (other than that Staten Island hates de Blasio and will send a Republican to Congress, partially because of this, according to some).