This interview is by Chris Bragg of City Hall News.
Fred Newman, the controversial psychotherapist, philosopher, playwright and political activist, has not been in the news as much as his onetime nemesis, Frank MacKay, the chair of the State Independence Party who once tried to boot Newman from the party over his beliefs.Nonetheless, the city-based faction of the Independence Party has been working hard to make one last push for non-partisan elections, while watching MacKay’s travails from afar. Newman discussed his desire to see Mayor Michael Bloomberg push harder for non-partisan elections, how the state Independence Party has strayed from its roots, and why reporters do not call him very much anymore.
What follows is an edited transcript.
City Hall: The charter revision commission’s staff report recommended that non-partisan elections not go on the ballot this year. What can the Independence Party of New York City do to try and change that?
Fred Newman: Well, the Citizens Union, I understand, did a very, very good report and I was hoping that that would perhaps change the opinion of the commissioners. It certainly would have changed mine. I thought their report was quite good and quite convincing, but it doesn’t seem that the commissioners have been convinced, but I cannot understand why they wouldn’t be.
CH: Is there any formal campaign by the party to push for non-partisan elections?
FN: Well, we’ve been in that campaign mode for a very, very long time, so we have no new tricks that we can do. We were hoping that the commission would respond to that and they don’t seem to have. The answer is that there’s not much we can do.
CH: You brought several hundred people to a hearing in the Bronx who were very vocal in their support of non-partisan elections. How did the party drum up so much interest in the issue?
FN: We received 150,000 votes in the last mayoral race. We have a lot of support in the communities and we can bring our people, but apparently bringing our people doesn’t mean that much to the commission. So I’m not going to be in any way calling out our people from the communities anymore. I don’t think at this point it would make a difference. I am not trying to do it. I don’t know of anything else we can do. I am sure there are some people on the commission who are more sympathetic than others, but I have no way of knowing who they are.
CH: If non-partisan elections were on the ballot, why would it pass this year after getting 30 percent of the vote in 2003?
FN: Things have changed dramatically. Virtually every condition has changed. I think that since 2003 or whatever it was, what’s happened in the country is a major change. There is much more of a mood of being concerned that government is not being responsive, so that’s a very, very big difference. The Citizens Union report, for example, which indicates the citizen’s party has changed, I think also indicates why so many other people have changed. [Citizens Union did not support non-partisan elections in 2003.] The growth of the New York Independence Party is substantial, and the temperament of the country— including New York City, since New York City is, after all, much as we might sometimes deny it, part of the country—is that people are dissatisfied with the way candidates are selected.
CH: Non-partisan elections recently passed California. Does that translate to more support in New York City?
FN: Well, we had many people out in California working on this and they were using the same audience that we are here, so I guess in that sense, yes.
CH: Do you wish the mayor would weigh in a little more in support of non-partisan elections?
FN: His promise, his statement was to assure that he would do what he could do to make sure that it was considered. He created the commission, so he fulfilled that commitment. He didn’t make a commitment to work for it or be outspoken for it, although he has been before on the record. If you asked me subjectively today, would I have wanted him to do more, I suppose it would have been helpful. But I don’t think he has violated any promises.
CH: What do you think the future of the Independence Party of New York City is going to look like once Mayor Bloomberg is not in office anymore?
FN: The New York Independence Party existed before and grew substantially before our connection to Mayor Bloomberg and it will do so after he is off the political scene. There will be new people coming in and there will be new issues coming up and we’ll continue to participate. I think it will surely continue to be a political reform party.
CH: What’s your take on what’s going on with the State Independence Party? Some of the local chairs are upset that their endorsement decisions were overruled.
FN: It’s hard for me to say since I was involved with the state committee a long time ago and it was mostly people from New York City. It’s a democracy disaster, but no one has bothered looking into it. I have no real opinions on what’s going on there, but I know that it’s a very important development that the party seems to be a radical party in terms of its way of operating and functioning, and [Frank] MacKay made his decisions, I think, heavily under the influence of the Democratic Party.
CH: Do you see the State Independence Party as leaving its ideological roots as some suggest?
FN: When I was involved with the party, the local organizations used to make those decisions, essentially, the state chair and the state organization didn’t do it all. The local organizations made those decisions and those were the rules of the party, and MacKay has changed all that, that’s no longer true. The key to the party is internal democracy, but he’s turned it into a regular third party in New York State. I don’t think he is doing anything worse than any other third parties in the history of the state. It was very important to me that at the beginning we made an effort to change that, and that was completely abandoned by MacKay.
CH: There have also been some issues that have arisen regarding MacKay’s outside interests and his wife’s computer company. Does that surprise you?
FN: It doesn’t surprise me because that’s what happens, it seems to me, in all parties, major or minor, when they have no real concern with internal democracy—that is the kind of thing that happens. Why would it surprise me? I’m 75 years old.
CH: Pedro Espada is an old ally of yours. Will you help him in his primary?
FN: Not that I know of, I don’t think so. He hasn’t asked us, and it’s a Democratic primary.
CH: What else are you up to these days?
FN: I do everything I did when I was 35, 45, except I do it much more slowly. I do some teaching, some writing. I listen to a lot of music, I read the papers and I participate in New York City political life.
CH: Anything else you’d like to add?
FN: That’s a hard question for me to answer. I like to discuss many, many things, but I’ve received fewer and fewer requests for my opinions on these things over the years. People see me as too radical, I guess. I’ve been kind of checked out on the public debate on these kinds of questions. So, I appreciate that you’re asking me for my opinion.
Use the above link to find out more about my friend Fred.
NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!
Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us 
No comments:
Post a Comment