Paging Cincinnatus

When Ed Koch and Henry Stern launched the campaign for independent redistricting in 2010 they dubbed New York Uprising, they were continuing a grand tradition of true statesmanship from which they themselves had benefited.

In 1963, former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt had bestowed her highly influential endorsement upon Koch in his first successful bid for office as part of her effort to bring Tammany Hall boss Carmine De Sapio’s reign to an end. She had already defeated the Tammany Tiger two years earlier in a race for district leader by rallying the forces of reform against him, and with Koch’s victory over De Sapio halting his comeback attempt, she put the final nail in his coffin—and that of the corrupt Democratic machine that had ruled New York City for most of a century.

Though Roosevelt’s motivation was not entirely altruistic—she blamed De Sapio for derailing her son’s 1954 gubernatorial campaign and had vowed revenge against him—the credibility of her stand was unimpeachable. Here was one of the most respected figures in American politics dedicating the twilight of her life to the fight for good government, not on a global or national scale but in her own backyard. Nobody could have delivered the message of “Throw the bums out!” with greater gravitas and resonance.

While Koch was certainly never as revered as Roosevelt, by the time he fomented the Uprising in 2010, he had long ago cast off any taint from his latter years as mayor and morphed into a bona fide New York icon. The people trusted him, and Koch was not the least bit hesitant to use that trust in their service. Explaining his resolution, at the age of 85, to devote his waning days to railing against a system gamed to keep incumbents in office—to denounce with relish those who opposed independent redistricting as “Enemies of Reform”—Koch articulated a rationale that could have expressed Roosevelt’s a half century earlier.

“I am often asked why, at this point in my life, I am willing to spend so much time and energy on reforming our dysfunctional state legislature,” wrote Koch. “I decided to do this because no one volunteered to take the issue on as a project. I decided to make it, as it were, my last hurrah.”

Of course, Koch’s crusade was ultimately not as successful as Roosevelt’s. For all of the pressure he brought to bear upon the state’s politicians, in the end the status quo slithered on, with the Legislature fending off the Uprising’s onslaught by resorting to its customary legerdemain: conjuring a districting system that typifies New York’s version of the acronym RINO—Reform in Name Only.

But even if voters do not reject the constitutional amendment this November that would codify this ruse—as they should—it would be unjust to judge the Uprising a complete failure. It focused the media’s fickle gaze upon an esoteric yet essential area of our electoral system to which the public would not have otherwise paid any mind, and heightened the general awareness of Albany’s ills, tilling the soil for future reform efforts.

Sadly, Mayor Koch is gone now, and though Stern, his former parks commissioner, continues to lead the good-government group New York Civic (full disclosure: I served as executive director of Stern’s organization during the Uprising), he does not have the profile to command attention that Roosevelt and Koch did.

It’s a shame, because now is one of those moments in our history when our system is so distressed and rotten that we could really use another Cincinnatus— an elder statesperson who comes out of retirement to champion the people’s interest armed with the unique purity of purpose possessed by a politician who clearly has no future electoral aspirations. Unfortunately, so many of our esteemed leaders of past generations continue to derive their livelihoods from government, and thus their ability to speak truth to power is compromised. Others have significant financial interests that deter them from making waves with those who could affect them adversely. Then there are those who are the parents of current officeholders.

One notable exception to these disqualifiers is Richard Ravitch, who despite his wealth has never shirked from taking bold stands, and has on at least two occasions already played a significant role in wrestling New York back from the brink of disaster.

Is it possible that Ravitch and Stern are our only remaining leaders of yesteryear with the virtue and audacity to serve the people without strings attached? Surely there must be others. Now is the time for them to step forward.