A (progressive) upstater's perspective on the Gillibrand pick

By LindaBeth

I, of course, personally have political disagreements with Gov. Paterson's pick to replace now-Secretary of State Clinton. And I recognize that Patterson's choice very likely was made largely for self-interest. Rep. Louise Slaughter, a well-liked Rochester and Buffalo-area 12-term Congresswoman, would have made an excellent choice.

All that said, I am getting pretty perturbed by the media coverage that Gillibrand does not represent New York (State). My understanding was that the main reason Paterson wanted an upstater to fill Clinton's vacancy was because of the virtual monopoly that New York City has on New York Senate seats. Filling it with an upstater would give that upstater the power of incumbency for her re-election, as well as a prominent voting record that can represent her rather than having to rely on name (or family) recognition to obtain a Senate seat by unseating the incumbent. With the amount of money needed these days to run a successful campaign, challengers -- especially upstate challengers -- have little hope for success in New York, and upstaters also have little hope for a viable campaign in New York State without New York City recognition, while New York City politicians scarcely need upstate, southern tier, central, and western New York recognition or support.* New York City proper has 8.2 million residents out of New York State's 19.3 million residents -- 42%, and Manhattan is one of the wealthiest areas in the country (while also having an enormous income disparity).

As you can see, the non-NYC regions of New York often harbor bitterness about the tyranny of the minority on the state, as well as the general NYC arrogance that dominates state-wide politics. And we were all pleased at the prospect of having a non-islander be a Senator. So while I am not thrilled with all of the politics of this particular capitol-region politician, I am highly displeased-no, offended-at the continued NYC-centrism surrounding the uproar over her designation. The suggestion that she's going to need to shift into representing "all of" New York (State), and not just her sole conservative district is on the one hand, true, but on the other hand, has never been the case for previous New York Senators. To suggest that her district is an anomaly of the state is only true if New York State = New York City. To say that her choice is not representative of New York because her views are contrary to Mayor Bloomberg or Carolyn McCarthy's efforts are to restrict guns perpetuates this idea that New York City political interests are the same as the rest of the state. And that's just not the case (much to my personal disappointment in many ways).

To be honest, I do not know the specific political views of non-NYC New York. I do know that in Rochester, we continue to elect Republicans as county executives and Democrats as mayors, and the greater area populations reside in the suburban areas of the county. In other words, our region continues to be Republican while our city proper is Democratic.

Since 1962, only one Country Executive, serving 11 years, has been a Democrat in the Buffalo area. The last Republican elected as Buffalo mayor was in 1954. The Syracuse-area Country Executive has been Republican since 1962.

In other words, non-NYC NY is much more moderate than downstate.

So no, I don't like all of Gillibrand's politics. And we can critique her appointment based on political disagreements. But the way that the politicos are criticizing the appointment by arguing that her views are not "New York" views are to completely disregarding the heterogeneity, and indeed, the importance of non-NYC political views, love 'em or hate 'em. She may not "represent" NYC views, but she seems to pretty well represent the variety of views in New York State.

* NY geography lesson: "upstate NY" only equals "everything but NYC" to those who live in NYC or who do not live in the state.