On Firing the Gardener

We got rid of the gardener this fall, just as the leaves in the yard began their late turn to golden brown and red. This was no Mitt Romney move on our part - I've never uttered the phrase "your papers please" like some character actor in an Otto Preminger flick. We don't do police state too well, around the Watson acreage. We're not that orderly and in general terms, any new arrivals willing to do work we don't have the time for at a very reasonable rate are - as they used to be in around the Romney shack before the head of household was forced to turn into a snarling, hate-mongering national Republican, much like our formerly liberal New York City mayor - quite welcome.

No, it wasn't legal status of any sort that sent the gardener and his crew packing. Two other factors entirely drove the decision. One was the dreaded, gas-powered, super-hemi, fuel-injected leaf blower - those infernal strap-on machines than can exceed 100 decibels of Saturday-crushing roar, and infuse my stucco and screens with a thick film of organic matter. I hate them - and while we couldn't banish them from the neighborhood, we could send them from our little slice of suburbia. Now, I can just stand at the windows and shake my fist at the neighbor's gardeners - thereby indulging my love of the theatrically misanthropic, the well-loved "Mr. Wilson Snarl."

Still, the gardeners may have remained - blowing beasts and all - if not for another factor. The young 'uns. My son turned 13 on Friday, and in that coming of (teen) age arrived a moral imperative, in my mind: the importance of some physical labor, some turning of the soil for the common good of our little clan, something to sustain us on the arrable semi-urban land. For Lance Mannion, that moment involved a snow shovel:

All teenage boys aren't naturally averse to hard work.  If they were, family farms would fail after the farmer himself hit fifty, no car engines would ever get rebuilt, every marina on every lake in the country would have to shut down, and the parking lots of all the supermarkets would be stacked up with empty shopping carts.

But there are periods in most adolescent male's daily lives when a natural indolence overwhelms, when a simple request to straighten their rooms strikes them as announcement that slavery has returned, when getting them to budge off the couch to take out the trash is like trying to get a mule to climb a barbed wire fence, when handing them a pick and a shovel and helmet and sending them down into a coal mine couldn't be more onerous or unfair than pointing them out into the backyard with a rake.

And for us, it was that rake. Why, thought I, should we fork over cash to some brutes strapping the aural equivalent of a stack of Marshall amps on their backs to create a whirlwind of dust and grime just to gather a few harmless leaves. Why, the rake would do just fine, thought I. Especially with my 13-year-old wielding it.

Too many video games, too much computer, too many afternoons in front of the television, too many spectator sports, too much sloth. Why should my new teenager learn my bad habits! It was time to contribute. And besides, being a practicing capitalist, I knew it was important to link his rewards (some cash) with his action. So we agreed on a weekly retainer as a base - plus a per-bag (biodegradable, of course) bonus.

It's a form of social entrepreneurship on my part. I'm priming the pump in a growing economy, rewarding labor and energy, and saving money by not paying my gardeners. Plus, there's the lesson. Other kids may sit around as pure consumers. But you, son, will produce and you will be rewarded. (He went for this, good lad).

Gosh, Mr. Wilson. You'd think a chest-thumping, tax-cutting capitalist like Mitt Romney would have sent his own boys in the yard a long time ago? Then he wouldn't have had to undergo the sad ethnic cleansing of his landscaping staff.

Comments

[bruce b.]

I recognize this is a little off-topic on this post, but I can't help it.

TW said:

as they used to be in around the Romney shack before the head of household was forced to turn into a snarling, hate-mongering national Republican, much like our formerly liberal New York City mayor

Please, Tom. You didn't notice Giuliani's snarling hate-mongering in his 8 years as Mayor? He was more "liberal" than he is now on abortion and gay rights, reflecting the ruling-class ethos in NYC. He was no liberal at all when it came to African-Americans and NYC's poor, or on economic issues.

It gives the wrong impression of his tenure as Mayor to call him a "liberal" during that period.

Also, I can't help but wonder why no comments from you on the Obama/Oprah parade? I can't see how Oprah represents a "new politics," unless "new politics" means "no politics." Maybe it's just me. Krugman has been savaging Obama on Social Security and health care -- and he's not even a Clinton supporter!

[Tom W.]

Bruce - in the context of the national GOP, Giuliani wasn't just a liberal - he was far left, enjoying as he did the endorsement of the liberal party (yes, I know the politics involved).

To you and me, he may have been to the right - but not for Republicans. And now he's "changed." It's almost hilarious to hear him talk about strict constructionist judges. Almost.

On economic issues, it was mixed - he pumps his tax cuts but they didn't amount to much (most were state-issued anyway) and he ended his tenture with a larger city government than what he began with. He sued for stricter gun control and provided services to immigrants.

[Tom W.]

Obama and Oprah. Yeah. She should run.

I just don't know what to say about this "politics of hope" stuff - so many of my friends and colleagues love the image. Reminds me of Tom K. and Ronnie Reagan back in the day.

But that means I'm supporting the Democratic version of 41 - gulp!

[bruce b.]

Tom,

Giuliani was always right wing on economic issues, especially those that concerned the poor and working class. For example, he viciously attacked and belittled CUNY, a key advancement vehicle for the working class in NYC. Look how well CUNY has done under Bloomberg, when it has gotten a little (common sense) support! The same with the public hospitals -- Giuliani's goal was to close them. Do you recall how much he hated public education? He belittled and denigrated a string of competent and concerned school chancellors. He did NOTHING on affordable housing in 8 years. He did NOTHING for economic development.

On race relations and racial justice, he was as bad as or worse than any local official in the country. Let's not mention Amadou Diallou or Abner Louima. What about not meeting with a single Black elected official or leader almost his entire term? (He might have done so after 9/11.) What about offending the city's collective sense of conscience to the extent that ED KOCH was getting arrested at demonstrations? What about my personal "most appalling" case, Patrick Dorismond? You might remember him... he was killed by the police. Did Giuliani investigate the incident? No, the NEXT DAY, he released Dorismond's minor (and sealed) juvenile record to the press, saying "he was no altar boy." In fact, it turned out that Dorismond WAS an altar boy. Would anybody but a snarling right winger do that to a grieving family?

On some social issues other than racial justice Giuliani was to the left of the Republican mainstream. So what.

As you well know, saying he had the "Liberal Party" endorsement means nothing. That was pure patronage, often corrupt (do a google under Russell Harding) -- and I am waiting expectantly for some of the deals he made with Ray Harding, the Liberal Party sachem, to come out during the Presidential campaign.

I will grant you that he was decent on gun control issues and on treatment of immigrants, unless they were killed by the police, in which case he demonized them.

This is hardly a "liberal" record.

On "the politics of hope" (writing as one of the vast number of Democrats who STILL does not know how I will cast my vote... there are many out there like me): I can be as inspired by Obama's soaring rhetoric as the next guy or girl. And I truly believe he would conduct an enlightened foreign policy.

My concerns with him are twofold. The first is domestic policy. Krugman, almost always right on target (he's MY Oprah), has eviscerated Obama on health care and Social Security. Oprah's support actually CONCERNS me on these types of economic issues. Her belief system is that "it's all inside you" -- the "secret" to success is inside you. Not always, Oprah. Sometimes "it takes a village" or a community with social support systems for people to succeed.

Does Obama buy into the Oprah-ist philosophy? Is this even a fair question? Perhaps it is, once she started showing up on the campaign trail.

Some might accuse me of hypocrisy here. I never minded when Bruce Springsteen appeared with Kerry in 2004. But that was in the GENERAL election. In the primaries, I would "hope" that our Democrats decide on "politics". I "hope for politics."

My second concern is regarding who will be the strongest, most resilient candidate in the general election. On this matter, I can see a variety of arguments for each of three leading Democrats. But I have a feeling that a smart Republican can turn the Oprah association into a liability. Can someone show me how I am wrong?

[Tom W.]

Bruce, you won't get any arguments from me about Giuliani. My point was that against the national GOP backdrop, he was "liberal" as a Republican. And we was pro gay rights and services for immigrants.

Otherwise, he was and still is a small man in search of a balcony, as Jimmy Breslin said. And he's one of the nation's bitterest enemies of civil liberty.

I'm still thinking about Obama, I'll admit. His attack on Krugman was, I have to say, shocking.

[bruce b.]

TW says:

His attack on Krugman was, I have to say, shocking.

First of all, good catch. I hadn't seen that until you mentioned it.

Second, either shocking, or shockingly dumb.

Third, MYDD diarest thirdestate and Kevin Drum both say the same thing about the Obama strategy: he's trying to win the "media primary". Thus his attacks on Hillary's principled position on Social Security, placating Tim Russert and Chris Matthews.

Both Drum and thirdestate make the same point (quoting from thirdestate):

So while Obama's (or should I say David Axelrod's) strategy might make sense, I find it very, very worrisome.

Drum's posting on the issue.

Fourth, this seems to go along with the Oprah offensive. It is all a little too acceptable to me. A little too middle-of-the-road. A little too trendy. A little too -- dare I say it -- vacuous.

A great politician stands on his or her own two feet.

[bruce b.]

PS Hillary might actually have an opening here. In bringing Oprah in, has Obama played his "trump card"? After a rough couple of weeks, is there enough time for people to take a "second look" (third look?) at what Hillary brings to the table?

Can she get back to presenting HER vision, which at least on domestic policy might very well be SUPERIOR to Obama's vision, and presenting it in a positive way?

Which candidate will, if President, more stubbornly persist in getting national health insurance enacted? Which candidate will be more dedicated to the plight of working people? Which candidate do we trust more to rebuild the middle class?

We have all given Obama a well-deserved second look. Isn't the question now, how does Hillary respond? And is Edwards still in the discussion?

We eagerly await your thoughts on all this, Mr. Watson. It has all gotten very interesting, wouldn't you agree?

[Tony Alva]

I remember what NYC was before Rudy, and what it became during and after his time as prosecutor and mayor. He may not be the best candidate for prez, but I gotta say that the guy made NYC a much safer place to work/live/visit while I was living in the area.

Perhaps your assesment of all the other things you mention CUNY, etc... are accurate, but it sure looks like what NYC needed most back then was a crime enema and Rudy sure as hell gave it one. The wiretaps from all the mob investigations showed Rudy could not be bought and judging from how many of them he sent up, I'd have to give the guy props on this. 9/11? I don't know. He seemed to have done a decent enough job. I think Rudy is way too green to be a candidate in the Obama sense. Neither has any global experience with what they're going to be inheriting in 2008, but I think Bloomberg was handed a better functioning city than what Rudy got by a long shot.

[bruce b.]

Tony,

First of all, my argument was that he wasn't a LIBERAL, by any means, as Mayor. I didn't say whether I considered him a good Mayor or not.

So, as long as you raise it... he did indeed have a good track record on crime. But there are an awful lot of "buts" to add to this.

First of all, the crime rate STARTED going down under his predecessor, Mayor Dinkins. Dinkins passed some legislation increasing the police force by quite a bit. Rudy inherited this.

Under Rudy's watch, the "Compstat" program was initiated, and this proved very effective. Was this program due to Rudy or his first police chief, William Bratton (now head of LAPD)? That is in dispute. Rudy ended up firing Bratton in an ego battle. Nevertheless. Rudy gets props on this issue.

Please note that there was an underlying trend of a decreasing crime rate nationally; the crack epidemic subsided; and that crime went down EQUALLY fast under Bloomberg after Rudy left, and perhaps under Dinkins the last year or two.

And no discussion of Rudy's policing tactics should omit the fact that vast sections of the Black and Hispanic communities (together, close to 50% of NYC) often felt more afraid of the police than the criminals, often with good reason.

All that being said, crime is hardly the only issue for a mayor. It is interesting that you mention you were living "in the area." Rudy might have been a great mayor for VISITORS. For New Yorkers, there were issues such as affordable housing that he never addressed at all. And trying to SELL the public hospital system -- he wasn't successful in this effort -- would not have improved the quality of life for poor and working class New Yorkers.

I could go on, but you get my drift. I don't think the guy was the WORST Mayor we have ever had. He also wasn't close to being the best.

[Tom W.]

I think we should all take the time to picture New York in 1994 - this wasn't the NY of Charlotte Street and the Bronx is Burning and Fort Apache and the French Connection.

It was the NY of Friends and Seinfeld - a city on the rise, already far into a big economic comeback. Crime was already dropping when Giuliani came to power, and tourism was already up.

I remember it so well, because I started a business in NYC the following year, after making the rounds in '94. It was a city on the rise - the economy was just edging into the dot-com era. It's important to know the context and not buy into the "he saved a desperate, failing city" routine. It wasn't true.

[Tom K]

I call BS, Tom -- you expressly defended Dinkins for reelection in 1993 not based on the fact that he was governing well, but on the conceptually incompatible ground that he wasn't at fault for the state of affairs, because the city was "ungovernable".

Your word, not mine. Recall?

[Tom W.]

I think I was a bit more nuanced than that, Tom. But I may have used the phrase - which has been true under Beame, Koch, Dinkins, Giuliani, and Bloomberg all. You can govern certain aspects of NYC to some percentage, but it's an ungovernable city in the total sense - like LA, London, etc. Dinkins was not a brilliant success as mayor, nor was he the horrible failure he was depicted to be. He picked a great police commissioner, for instance.

But what's really surprising is you getting behind Giuliani???

[Tony Alva]

Bruce,

Taking all of yours and TW's comments in here, I very much stand firm on my initial comments. I mentioned his mayorial past because you mentioned his record in NYC in such an unfavorable light. Oddly, I agree to some extent with Tom W's once youthful assessment that the city was ungovernable and given that many problems I'd pick the one with the greatest potential impact. Rudy went with what he knew: crime. It seemed to have worked better than anybody would have thought.

As far as affordable housing, ALL you NYC'ers live in some la la land where you actually think ANYTHING in the 5 buroughs is remotely affordable. Give it up guys, it never was, nor will it ever be affordable to live in NYC (and be safe at the same time). Sorry. It was the reason I left. There's a great big country out here and while not quite as cool as NYC and the metro area I must admit, still pretty nice and MUCH more affordable. While I'd like to return, I just moved my family into five bedrooms with a swimming pool for what my good friend pays for one bedroom in Brooklyn. Just can't see us giving it up for better pizza:-)

[Tom K]

Tom:

I'm not getting behind Rudy, just reciting the facts. (Though I think his greatness as mayor nearly matches the poorness I would expect from him as president. Has to do with how much I want to see power consoidated, expanded and exercised in the two offices at the times in question).

I appreciate your bob-and-weave, but it is futile. If you wish to be true to the facts, our discussion was not about the margins where any large entity becomes "ungovernable" -- it was about my charge that the state of affairs in NY made it undesirable to re-elect Dinkins, and your response that the state of affairs was not his fault, since the City was "ungovernable". (Notably lacking -- any claim that the state of affairs was good, or improving, or about to undergo an historic transformation regardless of who was elected).

It was no more nuanced than that. I was struck by the phrase and, while I was pondering whether or not it was true (in the sense that use used it), Rudy went out and proved that it was not. Them's the facts . . . the many other facts about him, less complimentary, with which we NY's are generally well acquianted, don't change that.

[Tom W.]

You don't seem to get that I (and others) dispute this part - "...Rudy went out and proved that it was not."

He had something to do with it, but was not the driving factor, in my view - not at all. Sorry I didn't have the chrystal ball to see the (further) improvement in the city from the vantagepoint of 1993. I'd already seen the improvement from 1977 - which was far, far greater than the period of 94-01.

[Tom K]

You can dispute it all you want, I just want the facts underlying the argument to be straight. Thus, I objected to is your effort to deny that, in 1993, your defense of Dinkins was based on the insolubility of the City's problems, not his ability to solve them. It seems you now admit that ("Sorry I didn't have the chrystal ball to see the (further) improvement in the city from the vantagepoint of 1993"), so we can proceed to point 2.

That is whether, in fact, it was mere coincidence that the City improved by historical dimensions within 3-4 years of Dinkins moving on to Columbia, and Rudy to the mayor's office. I do, indeed, "get" that you say, yes, it was. OK. Best of luck in making your arguments; history is an endless argument, and I admire your willingness to assume such a difficult position.

Sometimes, the contrarian interpretations are the correct ones. This doesn't happen to be one of those times, in my view, but argue away. (While you're at it, you might want to remind us how Reagan's victory in 1980 delayed the fall of the Soviet Union by getting in the way of Jimmy Carter's master plan).

I agree with you, in any event, that Koch was a good mayor, especially in his first two terms. Between his third term and Dinkins first, though, I think some of Koch's gains had been lost. But hey, maybe you think ethnic minorities in communities like Crown Heights have no right to police protection; again, let the argument roll on.

[Tom W.]

Uggh - so Crown Heights was everything. That's a very poor argument. I'm actually shocked you believe this Rudy stuff. Did crime go down? Yes. Did he continue community policing and broken windows and the build-up of the police force? Yes. Did he pioneer a statistics-based resources program? Yes. But is that all you mean by governing - police work? And yes, I'm respectful of the family heritage - very much so.

What about civil liberties, TK - that's your thing. I can recall some outrage on your part.

[Tom K]

Rudy wasn't exactly stringing people up by lamposts so, given the situation he inherited, his civil rights abuses will appear minor next to his accomplishments. But New York in 1994 had very different needs than the U.S. has today, and the things I saw in him as mayor that concerned me are exactly the things I don't want in a president.

Crown Heights I mentioned in passing. A poor argument? I think the suggestion that you can properly discuss the reasons for Dinkins' defeat without mentioning Crown Heights borders on the bizzare. It was a key event, and not without reason. It showed not only incompetence, but incompetence with a suggestion of indifference based on improper considerations. (While I would strongly disagee with anyone suggesting Dinkins was motivated by bias against anyone, I think his relucatance to act cannot be entirely removed from the racial dynamics of that siuation and his political -- inteptly political, but still political -- considerations).

As for the NYPD angle, Rudy was and is extremely unpopular with the police themselves, as I am sure you know. I defend him not on account of my father, but because I appreciate having a safer city in which to raise my children. (Geez, if I wasn't against his candidacy, that would almost sound like a campaign commercial).

And, I defend him because it offends me to see people minimize as "inevitable" the accomplishments of someone who says, "elect me and I'll do X"; is opposed on the ground that "X is impossible"; then gets elected and does X. The herd's migration from "impossible" to "inevitable", while enjoying benefits earned over their noisy objections, is maddening to me.

[Slappy]

Tom K, have you ever uttered the words, "It was inevitable. He had nothing to do with it." regarding Clinton and US economy under his presidency? Its a favorite line of Republicans.

[Tom K]

Slappy:

Quite honestly, I never have.

I have said, "the President has less control over the economy than many people think" and "most of the good things Clinton did were forced on him by a Republican congress", but those are different propositions.

I have heard others argue that a recovery was already underway under 41 which Clinton benefitted from and I have not disputed them, but I haven't made that argument myself, since it seems speculative to me.

Certainly the mayor of New York has more immediate control of NY quality of life issues than POTUS has over the US economy.

[Tom W.]

TK you said this - "...his civil rights abuses will appear minor next to his accomplishments."

I disagree.

Try this - rate the Mayors of your adult life. Here's mine:

Bloomberg
Koch
Giuliani
Dinkins

I think that's a fair ranking - bet you agree.

But if Dinkins had won the close election of '93, he would have benefitted from the drop in crime as well - with his commissioner still in place and his community police/broken windows policy in place. I agree Crown Heights was the signal political event in terms of security in NY during that race. It was an awful story, and the anti-Semitism was real and quite ugly. Ironically, Dinkins lost because the African-American vote wasn't as strong as four years earlier - riled up by Sharpton, many accused Dinkins of selling out the black cause to the Crown Heights orthodox community. Sad.

They said Dinkins was slow to react, but that's always been a crock - the mayor was out there the first night with the commissioner, and the neighborhood was flooded with cops from the start of the incident. Just look at the pictures.

Dinkins, to his credit, never overtly blamed the cops for letting it get out of hand. For this, he was called an Uncle Tom. I wouldn't have blamed the cops either. I'm not sure it was possible to contain that initial riot. The cops did not return the favor - in an act of political treachery, the PBA leadership claimed Dinkins held them back from a full, military-style battle and signed up with Giuliani - who then used the worst kind of race-baiting to stoke his second campaign.

[Tom K]

If Rudy becomes President, his civil rights record as mayor will be seen as significant by history, I think. If he doesn't, it will seem trivial next to his accomplishments as mayor. History will, I imagine, do a decent job of putting what he did in context and recognizing the variety of factors that went into NYC's recovery. With all that, he will stand as the best mayor of NYC in the 20th C.

Not sure I agree with your recital on the events around the '93 election. There's a good bit of opinionating hanging out with your facts. But on the facts alone, I would need to see more to be convinced that Dinkins ordered a vigorous police response in a timely way.

We've talked on and on about Rudy pre-9/11, but haven't touched at all on the second wheel of his campaign's bicycle: Rudy the fearless leader of 9/11.

I think he conducted himself admirably on and around that day; certainly, by the debased standards we apply to our politicians in the area of confronting danger, he did. But there is plenty to criticize here on the policy level, and he's overplayed his performance so much that he gives fuel to his crtics. (To justify his campaign talk, he'd need to have rapelled from a heliocopter into both jets and steered them to safety which, the record will reflect, he did not do.)

Interesting to me that you are more interested in knocking down his claims about pre-9/11 performance, which seem to me much better-grounded, than in calling him on the overblowing of his solid but flawed handling of 9/11 itself.

[Tom W.]

Wow - I'm no Ed Koch fan, but you're actually arguing that the changes in NYC between 94-01 were bigger/more important than those from 78-90? Wow.