Don't mention the m word

Fred Dicker was harrumphing on his Talk 1300 radio show about this Liz Benjamin story regarding Rep. Charlie Rangel expressing doubt that Andrew Cuomo will run against Gov. David Paterson. "I don't see him making the moral decision to run," says Rangel. The trouble is, it's all mixed up with racial politics, which Dicker is right to say should not be a factor. The respective races of Cuomo and Paterson should not be -- but are -- relevant factors that people consider in deciding whether Cuomo is entitled to run.

Of course anyone is entitled to run. But would it be disloyal for Cuomo to do so against his fellow incumbent Democrat? Or narcissistic and cynical? -- he has yet to put forward any kind of positive alternative agenda for the state, or to say anything meaningful about the fiscal crisis, and his main motivation appears to be opinion polling that shows he could win. On those nonracial questions, Rangel's point is valid.

Comments

[Brian]

To suggest that Cuomo running is a moral question is to suggest that Paterson's governorship is inherently moral or immoral. It is neither.

[Bob Conner]

Considered broadly, don't most of the major decisions we make have a moral component? Or do we expect people to act purely on the basis of self-interest? Presumably, Cuomo justifies running to himself because he thinks he can do a better job than Paterson. But doesn't he need at least that much justification? Would you defend grasping at power even if you know it's not in the interests of the people you seek to represent? You wouldn't justify seizing power by force, I assume. Going back to the Scott Murphy thread, is it OK to misrepresent your beliefs, or not to have any?

[Brian]

There's a difference between an action having a moral component and an action being fundamentally moral or immoral. Rangel implies that Cuomo's running would be a fundamentally immoral decision. Running for office may have a moral component (god forbid I say, hopefully so) but only in very rare situations can it seriously be called fundamentally moral.

The other problem is that Rangel doesn't explain why Cuomo's not running would be a moral decision, which leaves it wide open to interpretation or misinterpretation.

[Tom]

Won't the "moral" justification simply be that Cuomo can win and the assumption is that Patterson can't win (in the general election)? The party allows for primaries even against an incumbent. Cuomo not running would be the immoral decision because by not running he would be allowing "bad" people to come to power.

[Brian]

Tom, that's an incredible stretch, though one speciously used against misnamed "spoiler" candidates all the time.

But like I said, because Rangel didn't explain his comments, who knows what he really meant...