New York’s Liberal Party Closes Down but Not Out
March 10, 2003
by Joseph P. Tartaro
Executive Editor
The term “liberal” is frequently used among gunowners—with and without a capital letter, and with and without pejorative adjectives preceding it, to describe their opponents in the civilian disarmament camp.
In New York state, however, Liberal has been the name of a once-powerful third party in state politics. So influential have the Liberals been in the past that they have played a major role in shaping public policy—including gun laws—by providing the margin of election victory for candidates of the two major parties. Needless to say, this has usually been to the greater benefit of Democrats than Republicans. But in most cases, it has reflected the liberal tendencies of the constituents in many districts, particular in New York City and its immediate suburbs—and sometimes in other urban areas of the state.
On the conservative side, New York also has had a Conservative Party that has played a similar role for what is supposed to be the other side of the political spectrum.
But both the state’s Liberal and Conservative Parties have often disappointed their hard corps supporters by endorsing candidates who did not truly reflect the views of the party faithful or the stated party platform. Incredible as it may seem to readers from other states—as well as many voters in New York state—it is possible in the Empire State for a Democrat or a Republican candidate to run with the endorsement of both of these two seemingly diametrically opposed political third parties. In fact, in judicial races particularly, it is perfectly legal for a candidate to run with the endorsement of both of the major parties and several minor parties. In individual races, it’s the total votes that count toward victory, regardless of on which party’s line the voter pulls the lever.
Former Glory
It is no surprise to anyone that the state’s most liberal voters tend to be centered in New York City and some other urban centers. And at one time, the Liberal Party in New York had enormous influence, holding the third line on the voting machines after the Democrats and Republicans.
(In New York State, which line comes first for the four years immediately following any gubernatorial election is determined by the number of votes a candidate for governor wins with a party’s label in the last such election. When a Democrat wins the governorship, that party is number one on the voting machines for the next four years. If a Republican wins, that party takes over first. Minor parties follow in order of the gubernatorial votes on that party’s previous line. At one time, the Liberal Party seemed to have a lock on line number three. Then the Conservatives won the line, followed later by the Independence Party, and so on down the line.)
But for the Liberal Party, disaster struck in the gubernatorial election of 2002.
As reported by Associated Press in late February, the New York Liberal Party, billed by members as the longest existing third party in the nation, has shut down after nearly 60 years of helping to elect candidates from John F. Kennedy (JFK) to Rudolph Giuliani.
The Liberal Party failed to collect the 50,000 votes it needed in November’s gubernatorial race to maintain its status as a recognized party. As a result, the party lost its automatic ballot slots in New York.
Independence Delayed
Normally, party members would have become unenrolled or independent voters for election purposes. But members may stay enrolled because the Green Party, which also failed to get enough votes, was granted an injunction in December blocking the law for now.
Liberal Party leaders decided to shut down, rather than petition their way onto each ballot. They closed their state headquarters in December and in January announced the party’s demise.
“We will continue to be proud to call ourselves Liberals, despite the loss of state recognition,” reads a letter posted on the party’s website.
Is the Liberal Party gone forever?
“I doubt it,” said Democratic former Gov. Mario Cuomo, who had the party’s backing for his three victories and one defeat. “Maybe they’ll come back with a different title.”
Since its creation in 1944, the party has helped put in office such heavyweights as President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Gov. Hugh Carey, in addition to Cuomo, Giuliani and JFK.
The move to support the Republican Giuliani in three straight New York mayoral races angered Democrats. The Working Families Party formed out of that disagreement, pulling members away from the Liberal Party, which Cuomo pointed to as the beginning of the end.
The final blow came last year when Cuomo’s son, Liberal Party gubernatorial candidate Andrew Cuomo, quit the race for the Democratic Party nomination a week before the Sept. 10 primary. His name stayed on the general election ballot as the Liberal Party candidate, and he got just 15,761 votes on that line.
Cuomo the young, a chief playwright and leading actor in many of Bill Clinton’s anti-gun productions, failed to contest the Democrat’s convention vote for F. Carl McCall, and, even with the help of Kennedy in-laws and Hollywood celebrities, failed to wow even the most liberal voters in the general election.
Another Kennedy family member, who ran for governor of Maryland last year by trying to make gun control and the “Beltway sniper” killings a centerpiece of her campaign, also was defeated.
Some pundits have seen in the Kathleen Kennedy Townsend and Andrew Cuomo losses—as well as those of some other Kennedy relations warning signs for the future of liberalism.
But those who take that view, or cheer the end of New York’s Liberal Party, may be making a huge mistake. It is more likely that voters are more interested in people who really stand for something, rather than candidates who are merely shadows of more famous relatives.
While liberalism has taken some serious hits in recent years, reports of the death of this leftist philosophy may be very premature. World and national events can cause tremendous swings among the voters. And the makeup of the electorate shifts with national demographic changes as rapidly as it can with major economic swings.
The first President George Bush was riding high in the polls and public affection after the first Gulf War, but that did not insure victory when people voted their pocketbooks in 1992. Now, Democrats are lining up in droves as candidates for president in 2004, hoping that lightning will strike again.
Of course, Democrats may be hurting their chances to win the White House just by the sheer number of candidates who have officially and unofficially entered the race for their party’s nomination. At this point, there are no front runners.
National Poll
Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman led the pack in a recent CNN-Time national poll of Democrats and those who lean Democratic, with 16%, followed by Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt at 13%.
All other candidates in the poll reported by Associated Press on Feb. 22 were in single digits: Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry at 8%; North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, 7%; the Rev. Al Sharpton, 7%; former Illinois Sen. Carole Moseley-Braun, 4%; Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, 3%; Florida Sen. Bob Graham, 3%, and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich, 2%. The remainder were for others or were not sure.
Among leading Democrats, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton was viewed favorably by 72%, but apparently didn’t do well enough to be favored. Sill, it may be too early to count her out.
But a new NewsMax poll about the 2004 Democrat presidential contenders has netted a crystal-clear response: anybody except Sen. Hillary Clinton. In that survey, a whopping 70% of respondents named her the worst possibility, an astonishing figure considering there were a dozen choices. Only 2% named her the best nominee.
In the NewsMax poll, Lieberman was named best nominee, with 23% of the vote. Only 3% named him the worst.
It may be early, but stay tuned. The election is only 19 months away. Return to Archive Index
