• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

By Root 1165 0

their book about New York, Newfield and Dubrul ask, “What is killing New York City?” Their answer: dope, highways, Vietnam, the banks, racism, Defense spending in the Sunbelt, Sirhan Sirhan, national unemployment, recessions, Rockefeller’s moral obligation bonds and “a generation of municipal politicians who could not tell the truth.” Of these eleven factors, only the last two were self-inflicted. And even these did not represent a failure of ideology or people, since, according to this view, Rockefeller and municipal politicians were just being selfish. The main culprits were Washington and the banks. A similar approach is taken by Richard S. Morris, an otherwise intelligent political activist and consultant to liberal Democrats. The “real villains of the urban crisis,” he writes in Bum Rap on American Cities: The Real Causes of Urban Decay, are not “liberals” but the robber-baron federal government and greedy bankers. He adds, “Liberals are, indeed, taking a bum rap” because New York’s crisis is “not the result of any error in direction or approach.” Former Lindsay administration officials blame “the system” or the “ungovernability of cities”—when they’re not blaming Washington. Beame, as we’ve seen, blamed everyone, and therefore no one. The Marxian analysis—which is closer to the truth in its analysis if not its answer—is presented by Roger E. Alcaly and David Mermelstein in their book The Fiscal Crisis of American Cities. “Ultimately,” they write, “the origins of the urban fiscal crisis lie in the process of capitalist accumulation, in a system of economic growth dictated by capital’s needs to seek ever greater profits.” On the other hand, in the Soviet Union, for example, citizens are not permitted to move freely, a natural consequence of a government-dictated economic system.

Rather than accept blame for at least part of what happened to New York, the left too often portrays the city as a victim of a giant right-wing conspiracy. “Our true sin, in the eyes of Philistine skinflints and neo-conservative ideologues,” writes Irving Howe, editor of the socialist magazine Dissent, “has been the decency—if not sufficient, still impressive—with which New York has treated its poor.… The assault on the city is an assault on maintaining, let alone extending, the welfare state. The assault on the welfare state is an assault on the poor, the deprived, the blacks, the Puerto Ricans.” No doubt, many conservatives use the New York example as a weapon to bludgeon liberalism—a central thrust of William Simon’s book. But the thrust of my argument is practical, not ideological. Not whether New York often tried to do the right thing but whether, alone, it could afford to; whether it worked.

The New York crisis can be seen from many perspectives—from the left, as the result of capitalism’s need to search out cheap labor and reduce costs; from the right, as the logical consequence of intrusive government. Both arguments are, simultaneously, true. But the left tends to get so exercised that it overlooks some other truths. Take, for instance, the city’s 40 percent subway fare increase in 1975. Many cried, with considerable justice, that this was counterproductive and would lead to the loss of many more riders. That September, the city needed to borrow $906 million to meet its monthly cash needs. Sixty-five percent of this sum was earmarked to repay interest and principal on previous loans, much of which could have been eliminated if previous mayors had not borrowed so promiscuously. Just one-fifth of this September 1975 debt service payment—$120 million—could have spared the 35¢ subway fare.

An ideological view of the fiscal crisis—either from the right, which just blames the left, or from the left, which just blames Washington or capitalism—broadens the risk of bankruptcy. In truth, New York will not be able to dig itself out of its hole without additional federal help, particularly in restructuring its growing debt burden and also in the form of continued federal pressure for local reform. More important is what the city must do for itself.