All of which will come as something of a disappointment to the folks at The New York Times and the other enlightened, progressive sorts (including Bill Clinton) who worked overtime attempting to portray the campaign as a crossroads in American ethnic history. It was about race, they said. By which they meant: white racism. Well, sure. just like last time…but that’s only part of the story. In New York, as in most American places, “race” is two distinct issues: to most black people, it is racism–the deepest, ugliest, most enduring scar on the national character. To many nonblack people, though, the “race” issue is, increasingly, a euphemism for the failure of politicians to combat crime effectively or to speak plainly about the causes of social disorder. Feelings are particularly raw in New York, where–because of the cramped quarters–people of every imaginable bue jostle each other on a daily basis. The crime rate may be higher in a dozen other cities, but it feels worse in New York because of the density and interaction (and the breathless, tabloidy local media).
Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the mayoral campaign was the continuing descent of The New York Times, which once stood as a magisterial bulwark against the emotions flaring in the streets. The paper now seems intent on tossing away a century’s worth of sobriety in pursuit of a trendy, disingenuous correctness on matters racial. The trouble first surfaced on the editorial page several years ago, a drift from conventional liberalism toward positions that seemed microwaved–too often overheated or half-baked–rather than thought out. A Korean grocery store in Brooklyn was being boycotted, the paper opined in 1990, by “a black neighborhood” (in reality, it was a handful of racial shakedown artists). When jurors acquitted and then partied with the young black man charged with killing a Yeshiva student during the Crown Heights rioting–and allegedly found with the murder weapon in his pocket–the Times blamed the police department’s lack of credibility for the result. In endorsing Dinkins, it accused Giuliani–a moderate Republican whose (few) good ideas were roundly ignored by the paper–of “civic Reaganism.” There is a patronizing tone to much of what the Times says about race, a tone that mirrors the current fecklessness of the academic and media communities. The least responsible voices are given a respectful bearing–their anger is usually said to be “understandable”–while the solid progress and social conservatism of the black middle class is too often ignored.
Last Thursday, for example, the Times celebrated Giuliani’s victory with, among other things, a front-page account of Dinkins voters’ reactions: “Many predicted…[the] loss will translate into a tougher, smarter battle for the empowerment of people of color.” What strange language–especially the fashionable, but odious and imprecise term, “people of color.” (After all, Rudy Giuliani is also, technically, a person of color; his is a pasty, grayish pink.) The paper seemed to be accepting the nonsensical line put for-ward by some black militants: that all non-Caucasians have common interests and constitute an emerging electoral majority.
This sort of group obsession is worse than wishful thinking; it is dangerous racial stereotyping. It’s also a fundamental misreading of the realities of urban life. Most Korean store owners would be surprised to find themselves placed in the same political camp (“people of color”) as their customers. Latinos tend to split along class, rather than ethnic, lines. In fact, there are probably more than a few West Indians, especially Haitians, in New York who voted for Dinkins but resent being lumped together with native-born blacks, who have significantly lower household income and work-force participation rates.
Giuliani will have a rough ride. He won’t be cut any slack by New York’s rich collection of racial bloviators. He lacks the personality to charm his detractors and, so far, hasn’t expressed ideas compelling enough to win them over. The expectations of some of his supporters–that he’ll stem crime, rid the city of the homeless–make it likely that four years from now he’ll join David Dinkins in the lush ranks of city pensioners. His only hope is boldness, and a measure of candor. He won’t be able to lower taxes (as promised and desperately needed, if New York is to lure back private enterprise) unless be makes a frontal assault on the city’s enormous, antiquated bureaucracy. A good, if unexpected, place to start might be the city’s spoiled, underworked and too-often insensitive police union. Last year Giuliani made a fool of himself by joining with the cops in a rowdy protest of Dinkins’s proposed civilian board to review complaints about police behavior. But who knows: he might even win over the Times if he made it clear from the outset that he’ll demand a strict standard of behavior from all “people of color” in the city, including the color blue.
