For some, the recent explosion of discontent on the left came as a surprise. Gov. Andrew Cuomo had been an effective and strong liberal on identity and social issues like gay marriage, gun restrictions and abortion. What's all the fuss?
The fuss is about what it means to be a progressive on economic issues. Since the Roosevelts (Teddy and Franklin) a progressive was, above all else, someone who fought for the economic interests of the poor and middle classes. It was the ethical and political core of left-wing politics in New York and nationally. Back then, progressives excoriated the "plutocrats"; today, it's the "1 percent."
Here's where Cuomo went wrong. From his first days in office, he adopted classical austerity, supply-side economic policies that are beloved of the tea party and the Republicans, and anathema to the left. Tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, spending and service cuts, attacks on public sector labor unions, corporate subsidies and more recently opposition to minimum wage initiatives. There were exceptions, like a partial rollback of an earlier tax cut for the wealthy, but the policies and the rhetoric were clear. New York would be restored to prosperity with policies that Paul Ryan and Ted Cruz would applaud.
Some of us pointed this out two years ago, defining Cuomo as a "progractionary" trying to marry left social politics with right economics. We predicted trouble. But the Cuomo operation is decisive and effective. This was the road they chose. Their calculation that the left would settle for social issues was simply wrong.
In the last month, revolt was in the air. The Working Families Party, public sector unions, the Greens, and the activist base said, "Enough is enough." Billy Easton of the Alliance For Quality Education crystallized the discontent by repeatedly calling Cuomo "Governor 1 percent," and it stuck. An earlier WFP idea to put Cuomo on its November ballot line in exchange for full campaign finance reform got tossed, partially because it didn't look like it would be in the final budget and partially because the WFP rank-and-file wouldn't swallow it in the face of the tax and spending cuts.
It's not as though this will deny Cuomo re-election. But it's probably enough to keep him around 50 percent of the vote, and prove that "progractionary" politics is not the future of the Democratic Party nationally.
For progressives and for the WFP this is a turning point. The social issues are important, on the merits and politically. But no movement can walk away from its base and from its founding principles and remain effective. The WFP has become New York's most muscular and principled political operation by never forgetting the economic message: WFP stands with and for working people, poor people, and middle-class people as they struggle to survive income inequality and economic hopelessness.
The old Liberal Party started on that road, but lost its way. It became the party of bosses, patronage and political deals. It finally collapsed when Andrew Cuomo's abortive run for governor in 2002 left it short of the 50,000 votes needed to appear on the statewide ballot. It's some insight into the present situation that the Cuomo operation is threatening to revive the Liberal Party if the WFP doesn't toe the line.
It's not clear what the WFP will do, or who its third-party candidate will be if party leader Dan Cantor doesn't run. But the very soul of the WFP and its ambition to be the national force for progressive policies are at stake. If economic justice defines what it means to be a progressive, they have one hell of a choice to make.
Maybe it's easier than that. FDR and Teddy knew. Visionaries bring change; deal-makers go the way of the Liberal Party.
Brodsky is a fellow at the Demos think tank in New York City and at the Wagner School at New York University.