Why Does Everyone Hate Mayor Eric Adams?
Imagine being the mayor of America’s biggest city. Imagine you are headed down to Washington DC for a meeting with other mayors and a Congressional delegation to discuss the migrant crisis, which is hitting New York City the hardest.
You get a whisper in your ear that your top fundraiser is getting raided by the FBI, the law enforcement agency that has been weaponized against the very evil Republicans, who obviously deserve it. Surely some iteration of “But… me? Why me?” crossed the mayor’s mind.
Eric Adams recently hightailed it out of DC to “deal with a matter” so quickly that the delegation wasn’t even notified. The stunning move betrays a serious lack of confidence in his apparent colleagues and his own political security.
These aren’t the machinations of a calm and collected statesman, an image that Adams has desperately tried to portray. It was so plainly a shit-hit-the-fan moment, but it remains puzzling to political commentators.
As the case escalates, the mayor has had his phones seized days later by the FBI.
There is some important context here in trying to interpret just what this all means:
Adams has recently emerged as an outspoken critic of the migrant crisis and how it has disproportionately impacted New York. This is a marked departure from his earlier party-pandering, towing the line of: “all migrants are welcome.”
The Democratic power structure in New York remains largely unchanged in passing the torch from Bill DeBlasio. Adams is essentially business as usual. However, the progressive frontline that mobilized young people to vote blue is does not like Adams nor his middle-ground approach.
New York’s conservative base (which, despite tangible gains, remains decidedly in the minority) also dislikes Adams, but obviously for different reasons.
Even before Adams’ mayoral run, he was no stranger to corruption allegations, which, to be fair, is likely the case for most political operatives in New York.
As some have speculated, it seems Adams is the target of Democratic retaliation for deviating from the party line. Apparently, the party would rather have Adams navigate a controlled demolition of the city, rather than try to actually address its hemorrhaging wounds.
But why? Wouldn’t a better New York under Adams, a Democrat, be a good thing for the party?
The only explanation is that Democrats, while retaining just enough of a facade of “common sense politics,” are, in general, fully committed to the progressive trajectory. The Kool-Aid has already been drunk. To improve social conditions with any approach less radical than the slogan-policies of Defund the Police, open borders, or neo-genitals for minors, would be an indictment of those same policies.
In other words, the radical progressives, the spear tip of the Democratic Party, wield great leverage over their more moderate counterparts, and they would rather see our city fail with their policies than succeed with any others.
As much as I too dislike Adams, one cannot deny that he is shrewd. As a political-machine engineer himself, he knows how his own kind operates. He has to know that he himself may end up a target if he speaks against the narrative. So, why would he risk his livelihood and reputation when he could just shut up and comply?
If I had to guess, I believe Adams is reading the political winds and senses a profound shift in the air.
He knows that New Yorkers would love him if he cleaned up the city, but to do so would involve a heavy hand in policing, removing corrupt judges and DAs, and in general, a major political upheaval. Without the right tailwind, attempting this in earnest would be political suicide.
What would he need to accomplish this? Above, he needs federal support. The migrant crisis clash demonstrates that this is a long shot with the Biden administration. Below, he needs the City Council on his side, but they’ve been butting heads since day one of his administration.
Even if Adams were a benevolent actor, he would have a hard time accomplishing anything. And, changing the power balance of the City Council is arguably a more difficult task than tipping the scales slightly for a Republican president that would likely align with Adams’ perhaps-hidden goal of revitalizing New York.
Adams is acting as if the progressive stranglehold over American politics is reaching its conclusion. He may be forecasting a national zeitgeist shift in 2024 that would align with his second-term agenda, while attempting to stir up some conservative/populist credentials going into the 2025 mayoral race.
If this is indeed animating his strategy, he is confident enough in its success that he’s risking a federal probe. (I have a hard time believing this totally blindsided him. Maybe he didn’t know the time nor place, but he probably knew he’d find himself in some kind of hot water soon.)
The alternative is that there is pressure on the FBI to depoliticize and prosecute more fairly. But, with the potentially enormous leverage a figure like Adams should have on the feds, it’s hard to believe he couldn’t make some kind of backroom deal to spare himself.
Or, it may be that progressive actors are doing their best to take down Adams to make way for someone like Maya Wiley or Jumaane Williams to take his place. But, given New York’s burgeoning rightward trajectory, as seen plainly in recent local elections, the gap between red and blue is narrowing enough that putting up a progressive as the Democratic mayoral candidate on the 2025 slate is a gamble. After the most recent election, NY Dems are staring daggers at the state’s party chair, Jay Jacobs, for an abysmal performance.
Long Island ‘has become a Republican bastion’ as GOP candidate wins last Democrat-held seat, other local councils flipped (NY Post)
Republican Ed Romaine’s landslide victory over Democrat David Calone to become Suffolk County executive means the GOP now occupies all major seats in Nassau and Suffolk — including both county executive seats, the district attorney and comptroller’s offices and all four congressional seats.
Will Long Island become New York’s Florida? As millennials and older Gen Zers age into family life (and common sense), Nassau and Suffolk will become more and more attractive for those seeking stability and safety from the city’s urban plight. Flipping NYC blue may be a lost cause in the short term, but establishing Long Island as a new conservative urban center might just be the right next move.
In Greenpoint, a man with severe mental illness is harming neighbors. No one knows what to do. (Gothamist)
In Greenpoint, the man accused of pushing Whitcomb has become the topic of email chains, meetings with local officials and multiple long Reddit threads. Interviews with more than a dozen people who live and work in the neighborhood reveal that assaults perpetrated both by and against the man have forced some in the neighborhood to interrogate their beliefs about the criminal justice and mental health systems. Greenpointers face a difficult question: when someone with serious mental illness poses a threat, what’s the best way to keep both the person and the community safe?
In this amusing, yet frustrating, piece from Gothamist, the writer bends over backwards to get to the bottom of an apparently unsolvable mystery: how do you deal with a serial violent offender? More programs and resources? Moving away? The publication even omits the offender’s name, citing his mental illness and “because he is at risk of additional attacks by people who want to take matters into their own hands.”
Meanwhile, a quick breeze through the article’s comments section or a related reddit thread shows that posters of the progressive enclave hem and haw about how to deal with the situation, but only a few are able to vocalize the simple truth: he needs to be locked up. As commenters claim, the man is Christopher Boissard, with news reports about his crimes, which include sexual assault, going back to at least 2017.
New York considers ditching Regents exams as HS graduation requirement (NY Post)
The New York State Education Department on Monday presented the Board of Regents with the recommendations on graduation measures — which included giving students the option of taking the Regents exam to graduate.
Mona Davids of the NYC Parents Union said moving away from the Regents exam requirements to earn a diploma signifies an insulting lack of faith in the abilities of students of color.
“This is a continuation of the soft bigotry of low expectations from our black and Hispanic students,” said Davids, who was part of a 2014 lawsuit challenging New York’s tenure laws that shield ineffective teachers from losing their jobs.
If NYC education standards got any lower, we’d be removing information from kids’ brains. The proposal would make the Regents optional, and allow students to “demonstrate their proficiency in different ways.” I would imagine this would include creating DEI PowerPoints, vandalizing historical statues, and blocking subway trains for the progressive cause of the day.
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fe6e3dfea-bd44-4e00-81ef-ec339d32134b_694x982.jpeg)
Hailed as one of the Western world’s architectural feats of the 20th Century, the old Penn Station was demolished in 1963 to make way for the new site of Madison Square Garden.
The president of MSG at the time, Irving M. Felt, argued that the value from the new development would offset “any aesthetic loss” resulting from the destruction of the neo-classical structure. It was reported that he later doubled down, saying that “fifty years from now, when it’s time [for the new Madison Square Garden] to be torn down, there will be a new group of architects who will protest.”
Well, here we are, sixty years later. I doubt many would miss the gaudy styles of MSG or the forever-blue-light buzzing of entertainment-shopping complexes.
One architect, critiquing the old station, wrote in 1962 that “today we know that a railroad station need not look like a Roman bath in order to be good architecture.” Sure, it doesn’t need to, but modern alternative aesthetics have proven to be so lifeless, so driven toward visual dissonance and ugliness, that it’s no coincidence that today’s neo-traditionalists yearn to retvrn to classical aesthetics.
If you enjoy LBRTY Digital and our mission of guiding New York toward a new era of prosperity and freedom, consider joining our inner circle of supporters with a paid subscription. For just the cost of a couple coffees a month, you’ll help establish LD as a powerful alternative to the local media landscape.