Back in January, Ted Cruz floated a novel, but pointed, line of attack against Republican frontrunner Donald Trump: The latter shouldn’t be his party’s standard bearer, Cruz argued, on the grounds that he represents “New York values.”
Now that it appears Trump will, in fact, be the GOP nominee and will likely square off against fellow New Yorker Hillary Clinton in the fall, we might as well take a moment to glance at Cruz’s diagnosis and say, “Well, so much for that.”
If things continue on their current trajectory—an admittedly dubious assumption—the 2016 election will not merely be a showcase for so-called New York values: It will be an outright endorsement of and/or surrender to the same.
That may seem like an unlikely and counterintuitive conclusion to draw at this particular moment in history, but there you have it. Donald Trump was born in Queens in 1946 and has never identified with any other metropolis, while Hillary Clinton moved her family to nearby Chappaqua in the fall of 1999 and has held court in and around there ever since.
For all intents and purposes—for better and for worse—a Trump-Clinton race would be a Subway Series for the soul of America, during which the very notion of “New York values” would be fairly up for grabs, demonstrating yet again that the five boroughs do not comprise the Greatest City in the World by accident and that if you want to truly understand America, you can’t do much better than waking up in the city that never sleeps.
There’s certainly no great mystery as to why New York, of all places, has produced such a disproportionate stock of serious presidential contenders through the years. (Since 1904, New Yorkers have run against each other in three different presidential elections.) The city, forever and always, is such a crowded, competitive, high-stakes environment for anyone with high ambitions—be they political, financial or cultural—that it’s only natural for someone who finds any measure of success there to think he or she has the mettle to conquer the rest of the universe as well.
In this respect, Ted Cruz is absolutely right about Donald Trump embodying the city from whence he came. After all, what could be more of a singularly New York sensibility than buying up zillions of dollars of precious Manhattan real estate, slapping your name on every last inch of it, and then sitting in a room thinking, “You know, it’s about time that I really made something of my life”?
By all means, not every inhabitant of this town harbors such an absurd, colossal level of self-regard—such a hunger to expand their brand and rule the world in every way they know how. And even among those who do, few have such a comically-inflated ego or speak in such horrifyingly crude, prejudicial tones. For every arrogant blowhard like Trump or Michael Bloomberg, the city also produces such luminous national treasures as Lin-Manuel Miranda, whose seismic new musical Hamilton reflects the city at its most noble: A beacon of opportunity, welcoming to immigrants, artists, thinkers and revolutionaries.
Indeed, New York City is nothing if not a million different things at once, attracting a million different types of people, each finding his or her own way in the world. That’s the beauty and the madness of the place and the primary reason that folks from all over the world have been flocking there since the Dutch Republic first landed in 1624.
If Trump represents one strand of what New York symbolizes, Hillary Clinton represents another strand entirely—a strand, oddly enough, that comes pretty close to the definition offered by Ted Cruz.
Said Cruz during a Republican debate, “Everyone understands that the values in New York City are socially liberal or pro-abortion or pro-gay marriage [and] focus around money and the media.”
Cruz was attacking Trump, not Clinton, but when it comes to the latter, I’d say Cruz was pretty much on the money.
While Hillary Clinton took a bit longer to defend the rights and dignity of gay people than many in her party would have liked, she is now in perfect harmony with the supermajority of New Yorkers on that issue. Meanwhile, her support for abortion rights has been unerring and unquestioned, as have her views on most other socially liberal causes.
As for the presence of “money and the media”: You bet your sweet bippy.
Since her national debut as First Lady-in-waiting in 1992, Hillary has been as much of a media character as any other political figure. Throughout the myriad phases of her public life, newspapers, TV shows and the interwebs have built her up every bit as much as they have torn her down. As with Trump now, Clinton’s relationship with the press has always been mutually beneficial: She gives them endless material; in return, they give her endless coverage and the occasional benefit of the doubt.
Then there’s the money, which is arguably the most essential component to Hillary’s candidacy and career. At this moment, if there is anything that could feasibly lose her the nomination to Bernie Sanders, it’s her unnervingly close relationship to Wall Street and other financial giants in a year that most Democratic voters are prepared to burn the leaders of those institutions in effigy. Clinton herself assures us that she is equally concerned about the outsize power of Big Money in American life and will make every effort to rectify this imbalance once in office.
The problem—as everyone now knows—is that Clinton has collected nearly $2 million in contributions from various big banks over the last several years. Officially, these were mere “speaking fees.” In the minds of millions of Democratic primary voters, they were a down payment.
Here is where the business culture of New York comes into play. If you are the sort of well-connected, highly-respected insider that both Clintons have become since moving to the Empire State, you would regard giving prime time speeches to major companies as an obvious and uncontroversial part of your job (not to mention an easy and painless way to make a buck).
However, for someone outside of that uber-capitalist milieu, it looks awfully shady for a supposed big bank antagonist to accept millions of dollars from big banks and then claim that the money will have no effect on how she treats those corporations as commander-in-chief.
I am reminded—unavoidably—of the moment in 2013 when John Oliver, pinch-hitting for Jon Stewart on The Daily Show, confronted Senator Kirsten Gillibrand about her own six-figure income from companies like Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase. “What I deeply want to know,” said Oliver, “is what do you have to do for that? What is required of you for that money?” That Gillibrand didn’t even attempt to answer Oliver’s query is, in a way, more damning than any explanation she might have given.
Need I mention which state Senator Gillibrand represents?
That Hillary Clinton apparently doesn’t understand how anyone could find fault with her particular financial arrangement is, itself, her biggest problem of all. She has become so insulated in the universe of pay-for-play that she either a) doesn’t recognize open bribery when she sees it, or b) doesn’t think the voters are clever enough to recognize it themselves. They say no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people; I guess soon enough we’ll find out for sure.
In any case, this year it looks like it’s really gonna happen: New York vs. New York, and the rest of the country will just have to deal with it. No doubt those who share Ted Cruz’s worldview will find this situation intolerable. As someone who lived in the New York metro area for 10 years and still visits from time to time, I consider this geographic quirk among the saving graces of this ridiculous campaign.
Donald Trump, if nominated, would be far and away the most inappropriate presidential candidate in my lifetime, for reasons I have outlined over and over again. If elected, the damage he would inflict upon the United States is almost too horrific to contemplate. However, taking all of that as a given and knowing that I would never abandon my country for such paltry reasons as those, I’d much prefer a pigheaded Republican president from New York to, say, someone like Ted Cruz.
There’s that old adage, “He’s an idiot, but he’s our idiot,” and that is my feeling about Trump. If the GOP insists upon nominating a maniac for the highest office in the land, at least the maniac in question will have spent virtually his whole life marinating in one of the most vital, cosmopolitan, enlightened cities on planet Earth—and is damned proud of having done so. I don’t see eye to eye with Trump about much, but the conviction that New York is the true capital of the United States—the city that most fully captures America in all of its glory, beauty and absurdity—well, that’s one value about which we are in total agreement, and that is slightly better than nothing.