NEW YORK ON THE PRECIPICE

 New York has been declining for decades, hemorrhaging people and businesses, largely due to gross mismanagement by elected officials. But that will be accelerated many times over if Zorhan Mamdani becomes mayor. 

Who is Mamdani? He is the son of radical parents who own a guarded luxury villa in Uganda. His father believes that Lincoln was equivalent to Hitler, yet he has a professorship spewing garbage to students. As for Zorhan, he has never seriously worked or supervised more than a handful of people, he has never run anything, yet he is poised to take over the financial capitol of the world. He is more than a Democratic Socialist. He talks about seizing the means of production which makes him an outright communist. Well over 100,000 American lives were lost fighting against this ideology, along with a hundred million other people who were killed by communist regimes. 

He is slick and has managed to fool a lot of gullible people with promises of free stuff, which supposedly will be paid for by richer, whiter people. But the rich can simply leave. It is the middle class and homeowners who will bear the brunt of his expenditures. He is a relatively recent arrival and not a real New Yorker. Native New Yorkers are not supporting him. His support comes from the foreign born and affluent young radicals who have moved here from other parts of the country. They have not been educated in American values, but against them.

He is a Marxist and a nominal Muslim which gives him a convenient identity, but in all his pronouncements he is far more Marxist than Muslim. In fact Islam is even less compatible with Marxism than Christianity. He is also a hypocrite, not just because of his well-to-do family. He wants to eliminate all educational gifted programs, yet he himself went to the Bronx High School of Science, which is one of those schools. He is blatantly anti-semitic and opposes a Jewish state. He does have a minority of Jewish support, but they are more left than Jewish. 

Under Mamdani public safety will be infinitely worse. He wants to close the Rikers Island prison, he has been militantly anti-police, and will appoint judges that will free criminals into the city far more than they do now. They in turn will also make life miserable for the banks, who have already moved most of their jobs out of state. His regime  will terminally damage the finance industry, which in all likelihood will abandon New York, leaving only a shell of its former presence. So will many other businesses, leaving only mom and pop small businesses that can’t move, and who will be burdened with even more onerous taxes. Unemployment will rise when the job creators are gone. 

But the city will not totally collapse. There is simply too much critical mass for that to happen. However the New York we have known and loved will be but a shadow of itself. The wheels of commerce will grind to a halt, achievement and ambition will evaporate, infrastructure will continue to rot, public services will be diminished under incompetents, and the quality of life will greatly decline. But the left will have achieved the “equity” it wants- everyone remaining will be equally miserable. 

Much of the damage could be mitigated by the state, which has a lot of power over the city, but given that Governor Kathy Hochul has endorsed Mamdani there is not much relief to be found there unless she is voted out next year. 

I was born in New York and have lived here all my life. I have thought about leaving, like many others, but then think why should I leave? This is my home and I will still stay and fight. But then again if things go from miserable to intolerable I may have no choice. 

THE TERRITORIAL IMPERATIVE

The Territorial Imperative is the title of a book by Robert Ardrey that shows how male animals, especially the alphas, are compelled to establish and defend, or even extend, their territory. Something along these lines appears to be stirring in the White House when it comes to places like Canada, Greenland, Panama, and Gaza. 

Of these, Canada is most compelling, provided of course that the Canadians are amenable to it. But offering to make the 51st state out of a territory so large is woefully inadequate. If we were to consider this seriously it should be on the basis of statehood for each Canadian province. That would yield ten new states (Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Quebec) along with three territories (Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and Yukon). 

This would make the combined country the largest territory in the world, and provide a continuous line in the Arctic from Alaska to Greenland, another potential territory. Given that most Canadians live along the border with the USA in a narrow continuous strip, the whole process could be seamless. However this is not something that is going to come about unless the Canadians themselves want it, and pressure will only increase resistance. If anything the initiative for union should come from Canada, pursuant to advantages that might accrue by combining with the USA. 

On the other hand there is no particular reason why friendly countries cannot maintain independent, but closer relations. It would behoove us and our allies to move closer together, allowing more free movement and trade, while reducing, not increasing barriers. Unfortunately at the moment we appear to be headed in the latter direction. While things are moving well in Washington now, this is one area where reservations are in order. We share a common western civilization that should be fortified for our mutual long-term interests. 

The map of the world is not static, and changes virtually every year. It is sometimes due to the territorial imperative, often via war. One of the biggest problems arising with it is that extreme nationalists in every country think that their country should be at the maximum extent it was in the past, which obviously leads to conflicting overlapping visions of what borders should be, as well as chronic instability, if taken seriously.  But empires wax and wane, so that if every country sought to replicate their height of power and territory there would be endless conflict. 

This is reflected in the Russia-Ukraine war. Putin would like to restore the Russian empire to its greatest extent, and Ukraine is a historic and essential part of it. A case could be made that a common history makes this obvious, except for one thing: the Ukrainians clearly do not want it. Whatever was common in the past is in the past. Divergence has given contemporary Ukrainians a keen sense of their own identity and that cannot be undone. 

Such territorial claims can also be conflicting as we see in  the Middle East. But turning Gaza into a beach resort while displacing the native population is no solution. It is wrong to consider “Arabs” as interchangeable so that they can easily be resettled. For the Palestinians are not Arabs but consist largely of the indigenous population that was conquered by Arabs. There are people there whose origins go back to the Philistines, whose displacement would be morally indefensible. But it is true that a Palestinian state consisting of Gaza and the West Bank separated by Israel is simply not viable. Gaza should be an independent city-state initially under international supervision and the Palestinian state proper should be confined to the west bank.  

It is one thing to engage in much-needed disruption to reform the government of the USA, and something else to tamper with a far more complex world order. For the latter will come with unanticipated consequences and events beyond anyone’s control. Let the macho instincts be confined to domestic affairs. 

 

HOW REPUBLICANS STOOD MARX ON HIS HEAD

If you ever wanted to make an argument for economic determinism, the recent election results provide fertile grounds for it, based upon voting patterns. There was a clear divide between the wealthiest segment of the population and everyone else. A majority of those making over $100,000 per year voted one way, while those earning less that $50,000 as well as everyone else, voted another way. Marxists argue that economic factors determine political attitudes, so that the well-,off vote for conservative candidates, while the lowest earners vote for the Left. This has been the case in countries around the world (until recently), so that the wealthy favored the Republicans while the common people voted for the Democrats. 

But the recent election completed upended this dichotomy. Although these groups aligned according to income predictably, who they voted for did not. The wealthiest segment voted left, i.e. Democrat, while virtually every other segment with lower incomes voted right, or Republican. The Democrats raised more money from their wealthier base than the Republicans, especially in down-ballot contests for congressional seats, where the disparity was greatest. 

Nevertheless there was economics involved in these choices, only not based upon wealth but rather prices. Inflation and the economy were the prime reasons the voting public moved right. Although most people thought the country was moving in the wrong direction and that the economy was not good, there were at least some who thought otherwise, because it was working for them.  These were people who were better off, with higher incomes, and were the only group to do well under the Biden administration. 

There were sharp differences in perception as to the state of things. People with higher incomes barely noticed supermarket prices. With more disposable income,  inflation did not affect their affluence the way it affected everyone else. Thus while economic concerns were paramount in the minds of voters, the prevailing notion of what outcomes this would produce were diametrically opposite to expectations regarding political behavior. Republicans have been transformed by this populist strain, finally becoming a true “peoples party.”

 

A HOSTILE TAKEOVER

There have been instances in the past where a new regime has come to power vowing to reform government, reduce spending, and reign in the bureaucracy. The incoming Trump administration is unusually strong in its determination to achieve these goals. They may well succeed, but the historical record is not encouraging. 

When an outsider takes the reins of an agency they are flying blind. They are immediately dependent upon the existing bureaucracy they have set out to reform for information, and hence are limited or compromised from the outset. In addition, the status quo exists because various interests are satisfied with it. Change under these circumstances is extremely difficult. I have seen this pattern time and again, with the bureaucracy almost always keeping the last word. The passing of Jimmy Carter brings recollections of an attempt during his presidency to implement efficiencies via “zero-based budgeting” as authored by my late cousin Peter, who worked on it at the time but, as with other attempts, the status quo resistance was too strong. 

But now we have something different;  akin to a hostile corporate takeover. It is quite possible that the Trump team may prove to be the exception, much in the same way the man himself is. It is true that the Trump team recognizes this problem and so they have come up with a series of cabinet nominees that are largely, and deliberately antithetical to the entities they are to control. They bring a sort of revolutionary fervor. Perhaps they will succeed, but the task is daunting unless they have someone with inside knowledge of the organization who is programmatically on the same page. They might do better with cadres who independently monitor the agency for adherence to the goals set by the administration, or some equivalent kind of compliance unit. The Musk-Ramaswami DOGE group may fulfill this function. 

Some of the nominees chosen thus far possess a good deal of critical fervor but may lack the necessary knowledge to get very far with it. Others have different problems. RFK Jr. may assume office and move on his health concerns, but the other part of that agency, human services, is likely to be on the chopping block, including programs he might be sympathetic to. It is quite possible that he, or others,  might wind up resigning in frustration after a few months. The most successful are likely to be those concerned with energy, natural resources, and the economy; all areas of Republican concern and expertise. 

Cutting back has become necessary owing to the vast body of government bloat and expanding national debt. This has come about because all entities seek growth and expansion, i.e. the enlargement of their domain, which parallels the pattern of power distribution. Every other segment of society has limitations, such as business competition, supply and demand, or customer numbers.  Government faces no such restraints, so it continually expands.

When things become so stultified the only fix is revolutionary- taking departments apart and reassembling them from scratch. Routine must be replaced by radical change in order to provide renewal, greater efficiency, and functional competence. The tasks for the new administration are daunting, but not impossible. The incoming government may not be able to go this far, but the closer they get to it, the better.