RM Revisited?
There are certain issues where Neocons expose themselves for whom they truly are. Unmitigated Republicans. We know the big current policy issues (How ‘bout them Yankees Shiites!). But there are historical issues as well, beyond foreign policy.
Like, say, Robert Moses.
The NY Sun moves to defend Moses, with Francis Morrone writing,
In 2007, the world regards New York as a major urban success story. Five years after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, with construction booming all around the city, and with large-scale development projects such as the Atlantic Yards in the works, a re-evaluation of Moses’s legacy seems in order.
This makes no sense. Moses has been out of power for decades. What on earth does this building have to do with him? Nothing.
Moses made the views more awesome when he added the Verrazano Narrows Bridge to the picture in 1964. Nowadays a New Yorker can take the R train to Bay Ridge, enjoy a lovely dinner in one of that neighborhood’s many good restaurants, then sit dreamily on a Shore Road bench watching the lights of the bridge twinkle in the dusk. That perfect New York evening is ours in part by way of Robert Moses.
In fact, the story of the Verrazano was cut from Caro’s Power Broker, but I really am not concerned primarily with the views of Bay Ridge. I am concerned with the misuse of RM’s power (and, to honest, on his attainment of power) and most importantly, the halting of any public transit improvements (and even the preemption of future ones) during his decades of unelected rule.
So glad the view is beautiful. But that R train which you can take – that’s no thanks to Moses. Maybe think about all the trains we could have had in Queens, Long Island, and other parts of Brooklyn. Maybe that’s something to think about that while you’re admiring the bastard’s handiwork.
11 comments
Wow, what an idiotic concept! Thanks to the guy who destroyed innumerable New York neighborhoods and made Manhattan a hopeless traffic nightmare by pointing millions of cars to its hopelessly un-car-friendly streets — thanks to Robert Moses because the Verrazano is romantic looking?! What a disaster. You’re right on target.
What this has to do with Shiites and strains within the conservative movement is less clear to me, David. Is “how about those Shiites” meant to be shorthand for some sort of statement about the war in Iraq? My guess is you start with the premise that the NY Sun is a neocon newspaper — how is that, exactly? How do you mean it’s neoconservative as opposed to conservative? And how exactly is Robert Moses, or admiration of him, a “Republican”? He was actually a Democrat and in many ways the consumate New Dealer, with his grandiose public works projects financed mostly with federal money via the WPA and the CCC. In fact some sources I’m finding here suggest that Al Smith’s administration and the centralization and consolidation Moses achieved in it was regarded as the model for the New Deal.
How would a neoconservative, in your view, approach Robert Moses, as opposed to how a “Republican” would view him?
Ron, you wrote,
“My guess is you start with the premise that the NY Sun is a neocon newspaper — how is that, exactly? How do you mean it’s neoconservative as opposed to conservative?”
The NY Sun is absolutely Neocon. Seth Lipsky was absolutely pro-War (yes, the shiite remark was in reference to that) and he and Stoll absolutely loved Chalabi, who, to be fair, is hands down the greatest con man of our time. The Neocons generally supported the war much more broadly and deeply than regular conservatives did.
By the way, I still enjoy reading the NY Sun, and wish them the best of luck. I just don’t want their policies implemented.
“How do you mean it’s neoconservative as opposed to conservative?”
This goes back to the break of Commentary and the NY Intellectuals with the Democratic party. Some core historical differences in policy betwen themselves and regular Republicans are the state of Israel, immigration, free trade, agressive foreign policy generally, and a few others.
Then there are also subtle differences, such as though not social leftists, the Neocons do not emphasize social issues like so many in the Republican party do.
“How would a neoconservative, in your view, approach Robert Moses, as opposed to how a “Republican” would view him?”
On this issue, there may be no difference. This is unfortunate.
“He was actually a Democrat.”
He was most certainly not. He ran on the Republican line for governor, and did absolutely horribly. Worse than any candidate before him. The people did not want Moses in power. The people did not get their wish. Moses was the most powerful man in New York — ever. Hands down. Please see The Power Broker.
“In fact some sources I’m finding here suggest that Al Smith’s administration and the centralization and consolidation Moses achieved in it was regarded as the model for the New Deal.”
Moses working for Al Smith was early in his career. He changed. For the worst. And his power increased dramatically after that period. He because obsessed with power, and lost all interest in Reform.
Also, please note — while he may have benefited from New Deal money, he was hardly a New Dealer. And he and Roosevelt hated each other with a passion. They absolutely despised each other. Roosevelt even tried to take revenge against him no less than three times. Twice as president. In the end, Moses always won.
You know the material, DK, and I appreciate the clarification. I still don’t believe there’s anything in Republicanism as we know it today — whether neo- or paleoconservative — that would welcome the degree of massive centralization, consolidation and confiscation that the Moses policies imposed on New York City, for better or worse.
By your definition of neoconservatism, by the way, which is course the classic one that I learned in college, too (before the phrase was used to mean “Jew conservative”) there are essentially no non-neoconservatives in power or with any influence outside of the old xenophobe wing (e.g., Patrick Buchanan in its relatively prettiest face): GWB is essentially a neocon. Which is fine, but then your point (”not just neocon but downright Republican”) is hard for me to understand.
Ron,
I think it depends. You certainly have non-Neocon Republican senators and members of the house, though many are influenced by various camps. James Baker is hardly powerless. He ain’t no neoncon. And because of the disaster this regime has been, I think you will see an ascendance of non-Neocon Republicans running in the coming election, even if not on a presidential campaign level.
But I would not consider W. a purely Neocon president by any means.
OK, but back to your point about Robert Moses? Really nothing ideologically Republican about him, from either camp, is there?
Ron,
There shouldn’t be, but the NY Republicans (who are usually Neocons) consistently defend him to a large degree, and attack Caro’s book without giving examples.
The reason is they associate him with building, and they associate building with real estate, and with free markets. They have decided that since liberals get all upset about such things, and they hate Moses, then Moses couldn’t have been so bad.
But the real everlasting problem with Moses was not “building.” It was roads. And no public transit. Ever. Not under his watch.
Part of this is also because them Repubs get worried about public works like new train lines, the stuff that a social-democrat like me gets all excited about, because we have this crazy idea that this oil and auto addiction is bad for the U.S., and really bad for the Jews. But hey — the neocons figure once Chalabi would get in power, privatization and Iraq’s normalization with Israel would solve all those energy and geopolitical complications.
Ironically, the NY Post, who was the only major newspaper to consistently stand up to Moses, now has no kind words for either Robert Caro or Jane Jacobs, but is ambivalent about its lone, glorious resistance to Moses. And this lets the Times pretend to be n the side of reason, as opposed to their true role — the greatest enabler of RM’s tyranny.
Even if I were the biggest Neocon on earth, if I ran the Post, I would brag all the time about how the Post was the only one who wrote the truth about Moses, unlike the Times.
What the Post is doing is simply bad for business. They are downplaying how important they are as an alternative to the Times, and how dangerous it is for New Yorkers to rely on the gray lady as the newspaper of record.
“Nowadays a New Yorker can take the R train to Bay Ridge, enjoy a lovely dinner in one of that neighborhood’s many good restaurants, then sit dreamily on a Shore Road bench watching the lights of the bridge twinkle in the dusk.”
That sounds wonderful…
…but I know nobody who actually does this.
I don’t think anyone cares about what the Post said about Robert Moses before you and I were born — is that what you’re getting at, Deek?
There’s nothing free market about anything Robert Moses did, and it would certainly be the height of hypocrisy for conservatives to pretend there was.
‘l’etat cest moi’ must have been bob moses’ watchword.
party affiliation is irrelevant. He ran for governor as republican, yet he worked for govt his whole life, and whatever one cn say about the wokrs he left behind, they were all made public money.
he accumulated power for its own sake. he built monuments for his own sake. his expertise was navigating the govt bureacracy and amassing power. party membership would make no difference.
#1 there are no kosher restaurants in Bay Ridge as far as i know in my 3 years of hanging out with non-jewish and non-kosherkeeping friends from college there.
(if you know of any, please email me!)
#2 isn’t it *because* of Robert Moses that you can’t take that R train all the way to Staten Island instead of just to Bay Ridge to look at SI?
nyapikores,
Party affiliation was irrelevant to Moses, but it may not be irrelevant to the Sun.
Leave a Comment