The Scandal of Reform: The Grand Failures of New York's Political Crusaders and the Death of Nonpartisanship

7. The New Goo-Goos

96 7 The New Goo-Goos “Let’s be for real. When you’re on the outside, you’re a reformer. When you’re on the inside, you’re a regular.” Reform Democrat Clarence Norman, Jr., upon taking over the reins of the scandal-tarred Brooklyn Democratic machine,  The dramatic increase in social and political activism that occurred in the s and s was similar to that of the s and s. In both cases, activists rallied under the banner of reform and created advocacy groups that offered educated professionals opportunities to engage in politics without dirtying their hands with parties. But the new activists were quietly discarding the nonpartisanship that had always defined reform movements in favor of the Democratic party’s new brand of liberal ideology. Today, the city’s good government groups continue to call themselves “nonpartisan,” but the meaning of that word has been reduced to a legal definition written by the Internal Revenue Service for purposes of compliance with the tax code. Good government groups are now nonpartisan in the same way that the Christian Coalition and the People for the American Way are nonpartisan: they do not endorse candidates. But a nonpartisan organization no longer necessarily features a diversity of party membership and leadership. As late as , political scientist Theodore Lowi wrote of how New York’s good government groups sought a balance of party members on their boards and committees. Those days are gone. As reform moved from centrism to liberalism, one of the principles that had been at the core of good government for more than a century— fiscal restraint—fell by the wayside. Good government groups traditionally criticized the city’s legislature for spending too much; now they criticize it for spending too little and advocate for greater spending on a wider variety of issues without taking into account the city’s financial position. For instance, although today’s pension and health care costs have exploded and threaten to undermine the city’s and the state’s long-term financial solvency, the only good government group that has been sounding the alarm has been the Citizens Budget Commission, created by business leaders in response to the  fiscal crisis. The other good government groups have been silent on the issue. The New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), for example, one of the many state organizations inspired by Ralph Nader in the s, advocates greater government spending on higher education, environmental protection and remediation, public financing of elections, clean energy, mass transit, and other issues. All may be worthy causes, but NYPIRG, a self-proclaimed good government group, doesn’t worry about how to pay the bill. It also advocates for traditional Naderite consumer protections, such as tighter regulations on automated teller fees, and has opposed tort reform, including changes to an antiquated liability law that was widely recognized for helping to drive independent auto rental dealers out of business and saddle New Yorkers with the highest car rental rates in the nation. The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, the newest of the city’s good government groups, supports passage of local living-wage laws. Regardless of one’s position on such laws, they drive up the cost of contracts for government. Many Progressive era reformers supported greater government spending in certain areas, but not in every area and not without retaining a commitment to prudent and cautious budgeting. Good government groups’ abandonment of fiscal restraint has also led them to change their views on the relationship between the executive and legislative branches. Since their earliest days, reformers in New York worked to strengthen the authority of the executive vis-à-vis the legislature , on the grounds that the executive is more accountable to voters and has the responsibility for representing all voters, not just those in a particular district. Notwithstanding some reformers’ support for the councilmanager form of government, the reform community in New York continued to support a strong executive through the first half of the twentieth century. In , the Citizens’ Union led the charge for passage of the proposals put forth by Mayor Wagner’s charter commission to strengthen THE NEW GOO-GOOS 97 the office of mayor. But as the good government community was subsumed by liberalism, it came to support transferring power away from the mayor and governor and toward the city and state legislatures. As a general rule, legislatures...