Abuse of Power

Wednesday, September 16th 1992 started off like every other September morning in New York City.  People were on their way to work in all the usual ways, train, bus, car and foot, with one small exception.  

     Murray Street, a street just 2 blocks south of City Hall, had been blocked off for a demonstration. The permit was filed by the Patrolman’s Benevolent Association, the union for the rank and file officers of the NYPD.  It is known today as the Police Benevolent Association. 

     From all accounts the demonstration started off benignly enough.  It was reported that upwards of 10,000 off duty cops and their supporters started to mill about Murray Street that day. By 10am the off duty officers, and their supporters proceeded to City Hall to hear scheduled speeches by PBA President Phil Caruso, then Mayoral candidate Rudy Giuliani, and Police Officer Michael O’Keefe.

      Michael O’Keefe, had just been involved in the fatal shooting of Jose “Kiki” Garcia, an undocumented Dominican Immigrant in the Manhattan neighborhood of Washington Heights on July 3 1992. This fatal shooting ignited a spark in an already threadbare city, and a riot  ensued on July 4.  Angry citizens came out in the streets in a vain attempt to release years of anger and the belief that they were unheard. The situation got out of control.

     The demonstration on the 16th of September was organized to protest Mayor Dinkins' plan to create a review board for police conduct that would be overseen by civilians. The rank and file of the NYPD disagreed with this move by the mayor.  They believed their voices were  unheard.

      The push for a review board pertaining to police encounters with the public was not a new concept. It started in 1950 with a coalition of 18 organizations that formed the Permanent Coordination Committee on Police and Minority Groups. Its goal was to lobby the city to deal with police misconduct in general, and with police conduct in their relations with “Puerto Rican and Black New Yorkers.”  The review board had gone through several iterations before Mayor Dinkins’ proposal.  The only difference was this time the board would be compromised by civilian members only.

       By 10:50 am on September 16, 1992, as reporter Kevin Baker writes in the Politico article: “David Dinkins, The Right Mayor, at the Wrong Time “ Rudy Giuliani egging on a frightening, drunken riot by thousands of cops with a profanity laced rant while they cheered, yelled racist epithets, insulted  city council members to their faces and held up signs calling David Dinkins a wash room attendant, more than 4,000 of those attendees broke away from the lawful protest and stormed the barricades at City Hall yelling, according to reporters who were present, “Take the Hall.”  

     By 11:40 am several thousand officers began to move out of the park toward the Brooklyn Bridge and proceeded to successfully block the bridge in both directions.  The protest reportedly turned into a riot with reporters and photographers being physically assaulted, and a council woman accosted and temporarily blocked from gaining access to City Hall.  When all was said and done there were no arrests at the scene.

      It strikes a similar chord to the insurrection on January 6, 2020 when another large, primed, and rage filled group stormed the Capitol building this time with the intent of stopping the certification of a valid election.

     The protest in Washington on that day started as benignly as the demonstration on September 16, 1992.  People gathered with a constitutional right to protest.  As with 1992, speakers were chosen. 

     Those chosen to speak on January 6, 2020, included, outgoing President Donald Trump, Mike Lindell (of My Pillow), and Rudy Giuliani, to name a few.  Once again, incendiary speeches were made by those who should have known better. 

     An angry mob primed by oration and lies, left the podium and started to head up Constitution Avenue toward the Capitol while those in the crowd, there to just protest, separated themselves from the newly formed mob. 

     The Capitol was successfully stormed that day.  The mob gained access to the capitol building, unlike New York's City Hall, where the attempt at infiltration failed so many years ago.   Windows of the Capitol were battered, and shattered in order to gain access, 

      This time the police became targets.  Police were hit,  knocked to the ground, pepper sprayed, clubbed, abused, and subsequently members lost their lives due to the events of that day, all in the name of righteous rage.

     As the events of January 6th unfolded in a jaw dropping spectacle of malice and malfeasance by Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani and the like, those “wanna be” alpha males, took to leading the masses from their armchairs surrounded by tax paid security while those, whose rage they had stoked, ran amok through the halls of power, desecrating the building, assaulting those entrusted to protect it, and threatening duly elected members of Congress.

      These two events are the extremes of rage filled behavior both with the ultimate intent to keep power.  Once again a group had felt unheard, and was manipulated by those in power, or seeking power.  At the capitol riot the insurrectionists believed the lies told to them by the President, and elected officials of the Trump cabinet. 

     In the case of New York, members of the NYPD fed on the inflammatory rhetoric of a mayoral candidate desperate to win against an incumbent mayor he had lost to in the last election cycle.  Both of these events ignited those who thought they were in the  “right” to lash out at the very institutions that have given those who felt disenfranchised so much power to date.  

        These incidents are raw touchstones of the way malfeasance, falsity, and eventually rage seep into a system.  The precursors of such extreme events are all around us in our everyday lives with methods that are tried and tested in seemingly benign ways.  

     Lobbyists, political operatives, and hangers on push agendas on candidates and politicians at times in flagrant disregard of good government practice, and candidates accept the support.  Groups masking as non profit 503c’s, whose sole purpose is to advance a political agenda and gain power, all contribute to presenting and enforcing a false narrative that will divide the population and inflame their base regardless of which side the base falls on.

      The fourth estate, once a bastion of keeping power in check, has now become, if they exist at all, a purveyor of what is popular, writing stories that will keep the most readers coming back to a sadly dying institution.  Bespoke news has taken over, complete with “like” buttons to ensure a feed that aligns with your interests permeates your inbox.

     Tried and true practices of disrupters, like the vilification of those who do not accept the “new narrative,” the manipulation of statistics and fact, the pitting of one group against another,  the optic of creating minority extremism into an unquestionable majority, primed with false statistics and monied access to media and government are all present from city politics all the way to the federal government.

     One of the reasons for this rise of threat to democracy, to our government institutions is that democracy is being replaced with privatization of services. The privatization of government and government resources has become a quick fix for candidates and administrations looking to streamline the process of government in order to get “quick results,” results that will certainly help their candidacy in the next election cycle, but will most certainly for go a considerable percentage of the electorate.  

     Privatization is a handing over of our resources to a few powerful individuals to do with as they please with no intent or thought for the greater good, only greater profit. One need only look at the recent panel discussion on CNN with Kevin O’Leary, aka “Mr. Wonderful” of the television show “Shark Tank.”  The panel was discussing the offer of Qatar to gift a plane to President Trump.  While everyone on the panel was discussing the ramifications of the sale in context to the Constitution, Mr. O’Leary clearly stated he wasn’t concerned about the Constitution.  He was concerned with policy, and with what kind of deal was made.  The difference in perspective was striking, and indicative of why business is not and should not be a natural precursor or progression to politics.

     Those elected to office are sworn to uphold the law and the rights of all the citizens of the municipality, state, or country regardless of party affiliation, race, gender or any other identifying label. The oath that those who are elected take is one that does not mince words. It dictates the scope of the offices’ responsibility, and the stricture and power bestowed on the individual at the time of appointment. 

     The problem with an oath is that it is taken by human beings, and human beings come from varied circumstances, and varied beliefs. 

     Some who take the oath have a great need for power, some no ability to harness their desire for total control.  Some have no understanding of what true power is, or how to use it in a responsible and productive way, and still others are far too immature to decipher that personal aggrandizement is not what true leadership is.  An oath is merely words, it is up to the individual to bring that oath to life.

      Narcissists, gamblers, accused sexual abusers, crooks, thieves, and the like have all resided at the podium of power at differing times throughout history.  They have resided there along with those who are moral, studied, measured, experienced, and well versed in the nuances of human behavior.  The choice on how to conduct oneself lies solely with the individual whose hand is raised.

      Events such as those highlighted earlier are easy to use as a template of what not to do.  They are  stark, and the fallout is far too costly. The more insidious actions are done in back rooms with secret meetings and already planned agendas that the public is never informed about until the lid is eventually pried off.  It is then that the rage and the passions of those who have been misinformed or used are stoked.

       With the upcoming elections in New York City, particular attention should be given to what lobbies candidates are aligning themselves with, and receiving money from.  Candidates’ lobby support should be scrutinized carefully. That is the beginning of an administration choosing which group they wish to truly represent while in office, the people or the monied interests. In a perfect world campaign finance reform wouldn’t be something that the electorate has to fight for.

        To counter act this invasion into our government institutions the electorate must  demand that civics be brought back to the curriculum in our schools as well as setting up civics classes for all newly elected officials.  Every candidate who wins an election who has never served in office should be required by the city charter to attend a year long program offered by a nonpartisan, not for profit group selected by the Board of Education to educate new candidates on the city charter, the limitations of power, ethics, law, and the perils of aligning with lobbies when those newly elected officials are indoctrinated in their responsibilities.   

     Democracy is messy and exhausting and far more complicated and imperfect as this nation grows in strength and power.  To hold truth to power is the ultimate goal of maintaining good government, and without a vibrant and healthy fourth estate we the people are tasked with more today than we have ever been. It is time again to reaffirm that elections are important, and that voting is an essential  and vital piece of the democratic process.  Information gathering is crucial, the teaching of civics in schools is a necessity, and elected officials are required to be beholding to their constituents not monied interests.

      There is no magic bullet, no Hollywood ending, there is just hard work and the continued desire to work together to come to the best outcome that serves the electorate as a whole.  The alternative is where we seem to be headed for now, a world for those with wealth, and a world for those who are poor.  A world of displacement by price tag, and devoid of resources, and a world soaked in riches demanding more and giving even less.