Archive for the ‘Progressives’ Category

Undaunted by bail backlash, progressives push for Clean Slate bill in Albany – City & State

Political momentum has seemingly been on the side of the anti-bail reform crowd ever since Republicans scored several victories in local races in November after campaigning hard on the issue. But progressives are nonetheless remaining on the legislative offensive as the 2022 elections loom.

Activists are making a big push to change parole laws, and a bill that would make it easier to overturn wrongful convictions got some attention Tuesday at the Capitol. One bill that appears particularly likely to pass in the upcoming weeks aims to seal criminal records for people who finish their sentences.

Gov. Kathy Hochul included a so-called Clean Slate bill in her proposed state budget despite the ongoing backlash to bail reform, but Democratic lawmakers and activists showed Tuesday that they are not giving up the fight for a version of the legislation, which nearly passed the Legislature last year, that would be more aggressive in sealing records more quickly.

The one-house budgets expected to pass the state Senate and Assembly next week offer progressives a chance to show they arent intimidated by the GOPs messaging on criminal justice reforms as an April 1 state budget deadline approaches.

Messaging could help Clean Slate avoid the types of controversy that have plagued other progressive efforts like bail reform. This is not a criminal justice reform bill, Assembly Member Catalina Cruz of Queens, who sponsored the bill, told City & State. This is an antipoverty bill. Formerly incarcerated people would need to finish their prison sentences and any post-release supervision before they could have their records sealed, which would smooth the way for them to apply for jobs and housing. It just baffles my mind why we don't want to ensure that people are permitted to work, state Sen. Jamaal Bailey, who chairs the Bronx Democratic Party, said at a Tuesday virtual press conference in support of the bill.

The differences between the bill sponsored by Cruz and the one proposed by Hochul come down to when people would become eligible to have their conviction sealed. They could apply as soon as their sentences end under the version backed by lawmakers while Hochul would make them wait until the end of the maximum sentence imposed by a judge. This would amount to several more years in many cases, City & State reported in January.

Suburban moderates are few on the list of Democratic lawmakers who have signed onto the bill first proposed in 2020, but New York City Mayor Eric Adams expressed his support for the legislation during his budget testimony before state legislators, though it remains unclear which of the dueling proposals he prefers. The version of the bill supported by legislators was included in the Peoples Budget backed by the New York State Black, Puerto Rican, Hispanic and Asian Caucus, whose members include Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie and state Senate Majority Leader Andre Stewart-Cousins. Labor groups also recently announced their support for that version of the bill.

The fate of the bill hinges on the willingness of legislators and the governor to compromise on the details. We're working with the governor's office to make sure that they see that the language of need is the language that we draft, Cruz said at the virtual press conference. The governor has demonstrated her willingness to compromise with legislators on a litany of issues, including her recently-spiked budget proposal on expanding the use of granny flats across the state. She will continue working with the Legislature to hammer out an agreement on the Clean Slate Act that helps New Yorkers transform their lives post-incarceration, Hochul spokesperson Avi Small said in an email. There is a chance that negotiations on Clean Slate could continue outside the budget process if activists push legislators to resist any compromise that Hochul might offer.

Clean Slate is hardly the only proposal that will test the progressive mood in Albany on the matter of changing how the state deals with people who get caught up in the criminal justice system. The Peoples Budget includes a list of criminal justice reforms that progressives are eager to include in the one-house budget while moderates and Republicans are hoping to restrain them as much as possible before a final state budget gets approved around the beginning of April.

The bail backlash continues, but that is not stopping Democrats from championing their vision for public safety in Albany. This is about regular everyday people who have made mistakes, who have paid for them, Cruz said at the Tuesday press conference. Give people an opportunity to have a job, to rebuild their lives, to live safely so that all these arguments of recidivism and what happens when people commit crimes again can go out the window.

Read the original:
Undaunted by bail backlash, progressives push for Clean Slate bill in Albany - City & State

Progressives threaten to derail Biden’s $1.5 trillion budget over COVID-19 funding – Washington Times

Progressive House Democrats are threatening to derail President Bidens $1.5 trillion bipartisan budget deal over what they see as inadequate funding for combatting the coronavirus.

Far-left lawmakers, particularly those from the Midwest, say the $15.6 billion earmarked for COVID-19 vaccines, testing centers and new treatment options is not equitable. They argue, in particular, that Democratic leaders undercut the bill by acquiescing to Republicans demands that the coronavirus funding comes from unspent money already appropriated for the pandemic.

This is going to impact midwestern states the hardest, said one Democratic aide, who requested anonymity when discussing the topic. Our communities have spent money tackling the pandemic and now this budget wants to claw it back, while some states havent spent a penny.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, is working to allay those concerns. In a letter to colleagues, Mrs. Pelosi said that while some of the initial coronavirus money would be clawed back, states will get at least 91 percent of the state funds that they expected to receive.

Republicans resisted this deeply needed funding demanding that every cent requested by the administration be offset by state and local funds scheduled to be released this spring, wrote Mrs. Pelosi. To offset these costs and ensure the omnibus will be enacted, the administration identified $8 billion from the American Rescue Plan programs that have expired with remaining funds available.

Progressives lawmakers, however, are not sold. They say the budget bill should not move forward if it penalizes states that have used federal coronavirus funds equally with those that have not.

Some of that money is being clawed back to use for Covid funding, but that money has already been appropriated by our state legislature, and its not like its unused funding, said Rep. Pramila Jayapal, a Washington Democrat who chairs the 98-member Congressional Progressive Caucus.

To show their resolve, far-left Democrats forced Mrs. Pelosi to keep a vote open on a Republican motion to adjourn the House that was destined to fail. The delay angered some members of the Democratic leadership, who are eager to pass the budget before Friday, the deadline for Congress to approve a government funding bill or risk a shutdown.

Were not rewriting it, said House Rules Committee Chairman Jim McGovern, Massachusetts Democrat.

Last month, Mr. Biden initially requested $22.5 billion for coronavirus mitigation efforts. That figure was whittled down to roughly $15 billion during negotiations with Republicans.

For more information, visit The Washington Times COVID-19 resource page.

See more here:
Progressives threaten to derail Biden's $1.5 trillion budget over COVID-19 funding - Washington Times

Progressive discrimination: Your kids matter, unless they’re Asian | TheHill – The Hill

In 2007, in a case involving school desegregation, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts stated what some have always thought was obvious: The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

But when race is involved in the United States, its never that simple.

Cases involving schools and affirmative action historically have been about minorities on one side of the divide and white kids on the other. Minorities have been portrayed as victims; whites, as the privileged ones. But now were witnessing something new: disputes with minorities on both sides of the line Black and Hispanic kids on one side, Asian Americans on the other.

Its raising a question that must make liberals and progressives, who see themselves as the champion of racial minorities, uncomfortable. Is it fair to discriminate against one minority, Asian Americans, to increase enrollments at some of Americas top schools for other minorities, Blacks and Hispanics?

The answer to that question will have more than legal ramifications. Politics is deeply ingrained in the debate. Asian voters in this country long have supported the Democratic Party. As the authors of one study put it, Political differences within the Asian American community are between those who are progressive and those who are even more so.

But political loyalties now may be up for grabs. As a headline over an opinion piece in the New York Times puts it: Will Asian Americans Bolt From the Democratic Party?

And Thomas Edsall, a contributor at the Times, goes on to say, The question now is whether this party loyalty will withstand politically divisive developments that appear to pit Asian Americans against other key Democratic constituencies as controversies emerge, for example, over progressive education policies that show signs of decreasing access to top schools for Asian Americans in order to increase access for Black and Hispanic students.

Later this year, the Supreme Court will hear a case involving alleged anti-Asian discrimination at Harvard, where the admissions office set up subjective personality assessments to help decide which students Harvard would accept. And guess what: Those subjective assessments regularly rate Asian Americans as lacking in traits such as courage, leadership and likability. This lowers their admissions scores and makes it easier for Harvard to reject them and free up space for Blacks and Hispanic applicants.

Its not only at Harvard where this kind of thing allegedly is going on. The ideology of progressive educators has made its way down to lower levels of public education, too.

Two years ago, the school board in Fairfax County, Va., changed its admission standards at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, one of the top public schools in the country. Standardized testing requirements were eliminated and replaced by subjective criteria for admissions.

We could sugarcoat this in a number of ways, but it became apparent to everyone that the goal was to bring down the number of Asian American students admitted to the school and increase the number of Blacks and Hispanics.

And it did. After the changes went into effect, Asian enrollment in the schools freshman class dropped from around 73 percent to less than 50 percent. Parents filed a lawsuit claiming racial discrimination against their children, and a federal court recently ruled that the school board acted improperly, that the changes they made, as the parents claimed, were unconstitutional.

In San Francisco, Asian American parents led the drive that ousted three progressive school board members, in part because, like parents in Virginia, they were angry that the board changed admissions standards at a top high school in the city a change that benefited Blacks and Hispanics at the expense of Asian students.

And there are similar uprisings involving prestigious public schools in New York City and Boston, where according to progressive thinking, Asian students are overrepresented, even if they dont say so in so many words.

In the past, anti-Asian bigotry took the form of direct assaults. These reflected claims that Asian Americans were inferior, incapable of assimilating or stealing jobs. But today many Asian Americans are learning that the progressive form of discrimination may be the most insidious of all, is how William McGurn put it in the Wall Street Journal.

Whatever their intentions, it sure appears that were witnessing a new kind of discrimination based on race these days, one created by woke progressives, the same people who keep telling us how much they care about minority children apparently as long as those children arent Asian kids who do too well in school.

Bernard Goldberg is an Emmy and an Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University award-winning writer and journalist. He was a correspondent with HBOs Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel for 22 years and previously worked as a reporter for CBS News and as an analyst for Fox News. He is the author of five books and publishes exclusive weekly columns, audio commentaries and Q&As on his Patreon page. Follow him on Twitter @BernardGoldberg.

Read this article:
Progressive discrimination: Your kids matter, unless they're Asian | TheHill - The Hill

MNW: Progressives changing the rules to retain control – The Bulletin

Country

United States of AmericaUS Virgin IslandsUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsCanadaMexico, United Mexican StatesBahamas, Commonwealth of theCuba, Republic ofDominican RepublicHaiti, Republic ofJamaicaAfghanistanAlbania, People's Socialist Republic ofAlgeria, People's Democratic Republic ofAmerican SamoaAndorra, Principality ofAngola, Republic ofAnguillaAntarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S)Antigua and BarbudaArgentina, Argentine RepublicArmeniaArubaAustralia, Commonwealth ofAustria, Republic ofAzerbaijan, Republic ofBahrain, Kingdom ofBangladesh, People's Republic ofBarbadosBelarusBelgium, Kingdom ofBelizeBenin, People's Republic ofBermudaBhutan, Kingdom ofBolivia, Republic ofBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswana, Republic ofBouvet Island (Bouvetoya)Brazil, Federative Republic ofBritish Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)British Virgin IslandsBrunei DarussalamBulgaria, People's Republic ofBurkina FasoBurundi, Republic ofCambodia, Kingdom ofCameroon, United Republic ofCape Verde, Republic ofCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChad, Republic ofChile, Republic ofChina, People's Republic ofChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombia, Republic ofComoros, Union of theCongo, Democratic Republic ofCongo, People's Republic ofCook IslandsCosta Rica, Republic ofCote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of theCyprus, Republic ofCzech RepublicDenmark, Kingdom ofDjibouti, Republic ofDominica, Commonwealth ofEcuador, Republic ofEgypt, Arab Republic ofEl Salvador, Republic ofEquatorial Guinea, Republic ofEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFaeroe IslandsFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Fiji, Republic of the Fiji IslandsFinland, Republic ofFrance, French RepublicFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabon, Gabonese RepublicGambia, Republic of theGeorgiaGermanyGhana, Republic ofGibraltarGreece, Hellenic RepublicGreenlandGrenadaGuadaloupeGuamGuatemala, Republic ofGuinea, RevolutionaryPeople's Rep'c ofGuinea-Bissau, Republic ofGuyana, Republic ofHeard and McDonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)Honduras, Republic ofHong Kong, Special Administrative Region of ChinaHrvatska (Croatia)Hungary, Hungarian People's RepublicIceland, Republic ofIndia, Republic ofIndonesia, Republic ofIran, Islamic Republic ofIraq, Republic ofIrelandIsrael, State ofItaly, Italian RepublicJapanJordan, Hashemite Kingdom ofKazakhstan, Republic ofKenya, Republic ofKiribati, Republic ofKorea, Democratic People's Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwait, State ofKyrgyz RepublicLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanon, Lebanese RepublicLesotho, Kingdom ofLiberia, Republic ofLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtenstein, Principality ofLithuaniaLuxembourg, Grand Duchy ofMacao, Special Administrative Region of ChinaMacedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascar, Republic ofMalawi, Republic ofMalaysiaMaldives, Republic ofMali, Republic ofMalta, Republic ofMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritania, Islamic Republic ofMauritiusMayotteMicronesia, Federated States ofMoldova, Republic ofMonaco, Principality ofMongolia, Mongolian People's RepublicMontserratMorocco, Kingdom ofMozambique, People's Republic ofMyanmarNamibiaNauru, Republic ofNepal, Kingdom ofNetherlands AntillesNetherlands, Kingdom of theNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaragua, Republic ofNiger, Republic of theNigeria, Federal Republic ofNiue, Republic ofNorfolk IslandNorthern Mariana IslandsNorway, Kingdom ofOman, Sultanate ofPakistan, Islamic Republic ofPalauPalestinian Territory, OccupiedPanama, Republic ofPapua New GuineaParaguay, Republic ofPeru, Republic ofPhilippines, Republic of thePitcairn IslandPoland, Polish People's RepublicPortugal, Portuguese RepublicPuerto RicoQatar, State ofReunionRomania, Socialist Republic ofRussian FederationRwanda, Rwandese RepublicSamoa, Independent State ofSan Marino, Republic ofSao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic ofSaudi Arabia, Kingdom ofSenegal, Republic ofSerbia and MontenegroSeychelles, Republic ofSierra Leone, Republic ofSingapore, Republic ofSlovakia (Slovak Republic)SloveniaSolomon IslandsSomalia, Somali RepublicSouth Africa, Republic ofSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSpain, Spanish StateSri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic ofSt. HelenaSt. Kitts and NevisSt. LuciaSt. Pierre and MiquelonSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudan, Democratic Republic of theSuriname, Republic ofSvalbard & Jan Mayen IslandsSwaziland, Kingdom ofSweden, Kingdom ofSwitzerland, Swiss ConfederationSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwan, Province of ChinaTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailand, Kingdom ofTimor-Leste, Democratic Republic ofTogo, Togolese RepublicTokelau (Tokelau Islands)Tonga, Kingdom ofTrinidad and Tobago, Republic ofTunisia, Republic ofTurkey, Republic ofTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUganda, Republic ofUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited Kingdom of Great Britain & N. IrelandUruguay, Eastern Republic ofUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet Nam, Socialist Republic ofWallis and Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaYemenZambia, Republic ofZimbabwe

Read the original post:
MNW: Progressives changing the rules to retain control - The Bulletin

Williams and Lander Start Presenting United Progressive Counterweight to Adams – Gotham Gazette

Jumaane Williams & Brad Lander as members of the City Council (photo: William Alatriste/City Council)

All three of New York Citys citywide elected officials Mayor Eric Adams, Public Advocate Jumaane Williams, and Comptroller Brad Lander are Democrats from Brooklyn. But their respective victories in last years elections signified different things to their supporters and political analysts. Those who backed Adams saw his win as a rejection of left progressive politics that they believed had gone too far in the city, while Williams and Lander supporters celebrated what they saw as triumphs of progressive politics at the citywide level.

Those complicated dynamics are now playing out in the balance of power in the city. While the three officials are aligned in spirit and cause, and have repeatedly emphasized their collaborative relationships, the public advocate and comptroller have begun to gently present a united progressive front to the more moderate mayor on several issues.

Williams and Lander have been pushing, questioning, or contradicting Adams on issues including lifting covid vaccination requirements, administration appointments, policing policies, and climate action. But both the public advocate and comptroller have taken pains to compliment Adams and lead with common ground, often the shared vision on outcomes, if not strategies to get there.

There are natural tensions between the mayor and his fellow citywide electeds. Both the public advocate and the comptroller are crucial parts of the citys system of checks and balances and have duties that bring them inevitably in conflict with the mayoral administration something Adams has acknowledged and even encouraged as he vows a more accountable and effective city government. Its within Williams purview to speak out on behalf of the public when the city is failing New Yorkers, and Landers job involves auditing city agencies then upbraiding their failures while recommending changes.

Overall, Adams is a moderate with a nuanced set of policy plans who has ingratiated himself with the citys business elite and powerful real estate industry while Williams and Lander are avowed progressives who have spent years criticizing corporate power and outright rejected real estate donors in recent runs for office. But even on housing and development, there may be more alignment than broad stroke characterizations allow.

On the hot button issues of policing and public safety, there has been both alignment and opposition. Adams has an all-of-the-above approach, with a blend of more expansive and assertive policing as well as police reforms for justice and accountability; he has rejected calls to defund the police but also outlined planned investments in what he calls upstream crime-prevention measures to improve socioeconomic conditions for those most at risk.

Williams and Lander want all of those socioeconomic investments and more, and have been outspoken about wanting to divest significant sums from the police department budget to fund programs to alleviate root causes of crime. While both acknowledge a role for police, they tend to focus more on housing, health care, and economic opportunity.

Adams, Williams, and Lander have shown unity on several recent occasions. In October, after each of the three had won their respective Democratic primaries, they held a joint get out the vote rally just ahead of the start of early voting in the general election. At that rally, Adams urged Williams and Lander to hold him accountable if he should become mayor. I'm asking Jumaane Williams as the public advocate to find every policy that we fail on and hold our feet to the fire if we are the mayor, Adams said.

I sat down with Brad Lander and had breakfast, and I said, Audit the hell out of my agencies. Audit them, look at them, find the problems, because I know we are dysfunctional, he added. I know we are blocking progress. I know we are failing and betraying New Yorkers. I know we can deliver services better.

In November, after Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted of murder, the three spoke collectively in favor of stronger gun laws. And they planned to hold a joint January inauguration event in Brooklyn before it was canceled because of the Omicron surge.

Adams and Lander have also made several joint announcements where their roles converge. They worked together with the citys pension funds to divest from Russian assets in the wake of Russias invasion of Ukraine. The announced reforms to city contracting based on a joint task force they assembled even before taking office (first announced in a joint op-ed) and a $1 billion bond issue to fund city infrastructure.

Williams has been a presence at several of the mayors announcements and news conferences early on. He appeared at City Hall when Adams announced an expansion of the citys Summer Youth Employment Program. They both spoke at a community response event hosted by SAVE East Harlem in January. That month Williams also stood behind Adams after two officers were shot and killed in Harlem.

But on several occasions over the last few months, as Adams began laying out plans, making appointments, and taking positions on key issues, the gulf between him and Williams and Lander has begun to grow. The two have been opposed to, if not outright critical of, several of the mayors policies and appointments, and they have at times coordinated their responses to Adams choices.

The expected type of coordination the two longtime allies have shown was relatively rare during the de Blasio administration, when Comptroller Scott Stringer and Public Advocates Letitia James then Williams mostly operated individually.

Last week, Williams and Lander appeared with climate activists at a rally in Midtown Manhattan to call on the mayor to put his full weight behind the citys Green New Deal law that aims to curb emissions from the citys largest buildings. Activists have pointed out that Adams has repeatedly questioned the penalties imposed by the law, an echo of concerns from the powerful real estate industry.

Earlier last week, as Adams considered easing covid restrictions in the city, Lander and Williams sent him a joint public letter in which they advocated for continued precautions against the spread of the virus and plans for any potential future outbreaks.

As the case numbers, hospitalizations and deaths associated with Omicron drop, we agree it makes sense for the City to move forward with easing COVID-19 restrictions, they wrote. However, as you yourself have said, those efforts must be grounded in public health data, with systems in place to detect future variants and surges early, to respond to them rapidly, to increase vaccination rates, and to protect our most vulnerable communities.

In late February, Adams faced considerable criticism when he appointed three pastors with a history of anti-gay and anti-abortion views to his administration. The appointments quickly invited a joint rebuke from the public advocate and the comptroller. We are deeply concerned about the message that the mayor is sending by appointing leaders who have histories of disparaging the rights, and even the humanity, of LGBTQ New Yorkers and of working to criminalize abortion, they said in joint statement. (Williams has in the past faced criticism around his stances on some of these same topics, and has professed something of his own progressive evolution.)

Its not just Adams that Williams and Lander have trained their eyes on. In January, Williams and Lander appeared together outside the New York Public Library with housing and tenant advocates in a protest calling on Governor Kathy Hochul, a moderate and Adams ally, to support the good cause eviction bill gaining momentum in Albany.

Williams, with Landers support, is running against Hochul and other candidates in this years Democratic primary for Governor. Williams and Lander have long supported each others electoral bids, with each endorsing the other for office, as in 2021, when Williams backed Lander for comptroller and Lander endorsed Williams reelection as public advocate. Lander backed Williams 2018 bid for Lieutenant Governor against Hochul.

The two officials are darlings of the progressive left, illustrated by the fact that both were the number one choice of the Working Families Party in their respective primary races last year. In contrast, in the Democratic primary for mayor in which Adams emerged victorious, the WFP supported former counsel to the mayor Maya Wiley as its top pick (after ranking her third behind Stringer and Dianne Morales, dropping one then the other after their campaigns faced scandals). The WFP did not endorse Adams in the general election.

Williams joined the WFP and other progressives, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who got behind Wiley toward the end stretch of the mayoral primary last spring, expressing deep concerns about how Adams and other more centrist candidates were talking about policing. Lander stayed out of the mayoral primary altogether, pointing to the comptrollers important role as a check on whomever the mayor is. Williams indicated he had planned to do the same, but that he opted to back Wiley based on the rhetoric in the race.

Under the City Charter, the job of the Comptroller is to work together with the Mayor on a core critical set of tasks to help the city run effectively, and also to be an independent elected official who holds the mayor accountable, Lander said in a phone interview. And that's what I'm committed to do.

Obviously Jumaane and I are proudly progressive elected officials and have been for a long time and have stood together on a lot of issues that are about trying to confront the inequities in the city, stand up against inequality and systemic racism, push hard for climate justice, and policies that genuinely work for all New Yorkers, he added.

The mayor, the public advocate, and the comptroller have been friends and colleagues for years and have a strong working relationship, said Fabien Levy, an Adams spokesperson, in an email. Both Public Advocate Williams and Comptroller Lander have joined Mayor Adams for major policy announcements at City Hall and at other events across New York City, and we look forward to their continued partnership as we work to make New York City a better place to live every day.

Williams and Lander have been close political allies for nearly a decade, previously serving together in the City Council. As Council members, they most notably spearheaded the Community Safety Act of 2013, which banned discriminatory profiling by the NYPD to put an end to abuses of stop-and-frisk policing. The act, passed over a veto by then-Mayor Michael Bloomberg, also established the citys office of NYPD inspector general, and catapulted both Council members further into the progressive spotlight.

Now they find themselves facing a mayor who was a former NYPD captain and touts the importance of stop-and-frisk as a policing tool, but says his police department can and will use it without the rampant abuses that disproportionately harmed Black and Latino New Yorkers, mostly young men. Adams has also touted his record as a police reformer from within the department, joining efforts to end the abuses of the stop-and-frisk era, protesting police killings of unarmed civilians, and more a history that both Williams and Lander have given him credit for.

In an appearance on the Max Politics podcast in July last year, Williams stressed that he has had a good working relationship with Adams, particularly on tackling gun violence in Brooklyn, even as he expressed some concern for Adams tough-on-crime campaign rhetoric.

My hope is that the Eric Adams who shows up is the one that I've worked with on all these issues, and the one who was talking about the holistic approach, and not the one that I heard some things said that I'm hoping were said in the moment of a campaign and now as we get ready to govern, will go back to the things that Ive worked with him on for a number of years, Williams said.

Camille Rivera, a progressive political consultant as a partner at New Deal Strategies, said under former Mayor Bill de Blasio, Williams and Stringer were not as closely in lockstep. This however is the most I have seen there being real coordination, Rivera said in a text message. I think both of them understand that there are real distinct ideological differences between these two and Adams and because of that they have now become a real check for the Mayor.

The things theyre criticizing the mayor on are substantive, as much as Eric Adams has wanted the red carpet rolled out for him when some of the things he's doing are deeply unpopular and frankly just bad for people, said Jonathan Westin, executive director of New York Communities for Change (and Riveras husband), a progressive advocacy group that backed both Williams and Lander and opposed Adams in the 2021 election.

Westin said both Williams and Lander have solidly been on the side of progressive working people and will mount a pretty big challenge to this incoming administration, which might want to try and railroad folks, especially progressives. Theyve been outright hostile towards progressives.

Indeed, soon after winning the June primary last year, Adams again signaled his displeasure with the progressive left, reclaiming the term progressive for himself, as he had repeatedly attempted to do during the primary.

I have made it clear over and over again: I am the original progressive voice in this city, Adams said, at a joint news conference with then-Governor Andrew Cuomo, a fellow moderate Democrat who has battled with his partys left, and who was under investigation at the time for multiple scandals that led to his resignation weeks later.

Weve allowed the term being progressive to be hijacked by those who do not have a track record of putting in place real progressive changes, Adams added, sounding much like Cuomo. I am not going to surrender my progressive credentials.

Soon after, he broadened his criticism. Im no longer running against candidates. Im running against a movement, he reportedly said at a fundraiser hosted by Republican City Council Member Eric Ulrich, who Adams would go on to appoint as a special advisor in his administration. All across the country, the DSA socialists are mobilizing to stop Eric Adams, he said, referring to the Democratic Socialists of America, whose New York City branch did not endorse in the mayoral race but whose members were critical of Adams and appeared to be in favor of other candidates like Wiley or Morales in the primary and socialist Cathy Rojas in the general election.

Though he is often quick to rebuke critics, Adams has not yet hit back at Williams or Lander, perhaps indicative of how carefully they have gone about criticizing or disagreeing with the new mayor.

There is undoubtedly much on Adams agenda that Williams and Lander will support, the new mayor had many policy proposals that could easily be called progressive, from a significant expansion of child care to improving health food options in low-income neighborhoods to upzoning wealthier areas for more affordable housing. Both Williams and Lander have applauded Adams for announcing additional investments in summer youth employment and the Fair Fares program of discounted Metrocards for low-income New Yorkers.

But theyve also both expressed concerns on several matters, including Adams approach to his first budget plan, where he outlined cuts to several departments but not the NYPD.

I do want to see more evidence-based investment in supportive housing and mental health outreachgiven the public safety challenges, Lander said last month on the Max Politics podcast, among other questions about Adams spending priorities.

I think the key differences revolve around the corporate spheres influence in government where Eric Adams has pretty openly embraced the real estate industry, corporations, and really given them a seat at the table many times ahead of regular people, said Westin. Jumaane and Bradhave really opposed taking real estate money, taking corporate money, allowing these corporations to influence where they stand on policy.

Hank Sheinkopf, a veteran Democratic consultant, said the differences between Adams on one hand and Williams and Lander on the other have been minor so far. Its going to be more pronounced once Williams gets off the road from his ridiculous governor's race and Lander gets himself much more oriented, he said. At some point, ambition will take over and competition. Both of them have one goal, to be the next mayor and to make Adams life miserable when they can.

Whats less predictable is the breakthrough moment when the situation will become much more adversarial, Sheinkopf said. The cut line will probably be on law enforcement related issues for Williams and who knows what it'll be on for Lander, but he'll find his moment.

Politicians, he insisted, may be friendly but arent friends. This is like boa constrictors who try to eat mice. Theyre all friends until the thing goes down its throat, he said. Politicians have no friends. They are all in competition with each other for both credit claiming and for the ability to raise money.

See more here:
Williams and Lander Start Presenting United Progressive Counterweight to Adams - Gotham Gazette