From New York.
New York governor Eliot Spitzer is a true democrat. That’s democrat with a lower-case ‘d’. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a democrat is an advocate of democracy, a government by the people in which the sovereign power resides in the people as a whole, but more importantly for this article, a democracy is a social state in which all its citizens have equal rights. Unlike many other politicians who label themselves and then actively act out their role as members of political parties – Republicans and Democrats – Spitzer has proven to be an advocate of democracy in the true sense of the word. His most recent ‘democratic’ proposals have included campaign finance reform, legislation that would renovate New York State’s abortion law and endorsing a bill that would allow same-sex marriage in New York State.
Spitzer’s strong stance on campaign finance reform is quite impressive given the amount of criticism and political backlash he has and will continue to receive. In New York State, which has some of the least restrictive campaign finance laws in the United States, Spitzer wants to sharply decrease the amount of money that can be given to any single candidate who is running for election. By doing so, Spitzer hopes to make campaigning more fair by setting a specific dollar amount that every candidate can receive from the state, regardless of how wealthy they are themselves or how much money they can raise through other means.
Ideally, the point of this is to create a level playing field for all candidates. Also, it allows for those who have not been in politics for generations, who have not yet established a name and reputation for themselves, and who do not have an infinite number of places to get money from, to run for political office. What a refreshing thought! To have someone in office who is not tied down by promises to big corporations. To have a fresh new face in office who can bring his or her new and innovative ideas to the table.

New York State Capitol Building in Albany.

Ironically, Republicans in the Senate are arguing that Spitzer’s proposal is undemocratic. Their train of thought may go something like this: ‘We live in America where everyone should have the right to do what they want. If they want to spend all their money on their campaign and get donations by the millions, then so be it, because this is America!’ However, there is something intrinsically wrong with this kind of idea, namely the fact that while allowing the rich and connected to spend their millions, the other 98% of the population is left out of the very thing that should be at least a possibility, if not inclusive, for all citizens – public office.
In his defense, Spitzer was quoted in the New York Times (April 24, 2007) as saying, “The Republicans members of the State Senate were not willing to break their addiction to the free flow of money.” This point holds a lot of weight and, more than likely, a lot of truth. Campaign finance reform would decrease the amount of money candidates can spend; but money is power, so less money is less power. The math is simple.
It is naïve to think that only Republicans are outraged about this proposal because Democrats are also benefiting from the endless flow of money that unrestricted campaigns allow them. However, while Democrats are more open when it comes to this issue, Spitzer surpasses even the fairest of Democratic politicians by making this topic one of the top priorities of his administration. In this way, he is upholding the principles of democracy and equality – not an easy feat for a newly elected politician in America these days.
Another political issue that Spitzer is taking a strong stance on is the right of a woman to have a partial-birth abortion if her health is in jeopardy. His bill, the Reproductive Health and Privacy Protection Act, would update New York’s current law, a law that was upheld by the United States Supreme Court decision last week, which does not include the right for a woman to have an abortion late in her pregnancy in order to protect her health.
The Supreme Court’s decision to maintain this law, which applies nationwide, outraged pro-choice groups and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists because the current law says a late abortion can be performed only to save the woman’s life, but not if her health is at risk. These groups had a good reason to be upset – this issue is really one of personal choice carefully paired with professional medical advice. It is simply not up to an outside source to determine whether a woman should put her health on the line.

Pro-choice groups demostrating in Washington DC.

It’s commendable that Spitzer wants to get rid of the stigma associated with this controversial debate, especially regarding late abortions, by changing New York State law to remove abortion from the criminal statues. The fact that the law even treats abortion as a criminal act akin to a murder is appalling. Abortion is a woman’s right; it is her body and her choice.
Spitzer realizes this basic right, as do many Americans, and his bill would actively seek to protect a woman whose health is on the line due to their pregnancy. This too is a basic right. It is every citizen’s right to protect themselves, as seen through self-defense and the second amendment. A woman’s health is a precious commodity that cannot be denied on the basis of an unborn child. Spitzer is simply attempting to give some power back to the citizens.
On the issue of gay marriage, Spitzer once again stays true to his role of a democratic Democrat through his proposal to legalize same-sex marriage in New York, an action that would make New York only the second state in the country to have legal same-sex marriage. While several states allow some form of civil union, and many people believe civil unions are just as good as marriage, these states are in fact denying gay and lesbian couples more than 1,100 rights and benefits that are appointed to a man and woman who are legally married (New York Times, April 24, 2007). This is a clear case of separate but unequal practices, a violation of our Constitution. So, while civil unions are better than nothing, they are still below the line of equality that should be an unalienable right for all citizens.
While the refusal of the Catholic Church to marry same-sex couples is a private matter because they are a private institution, the role of the government is much different. Not only is the government as public an institution as can be, its role as a democratic entity is to provide equal rights to its citizens.
There was a time when women and blacks were treated unequally under the law; gays and lesbians are now the next victims of injustice. How long will it take us to realize that we are wrong this time?
Spitzer is well ahead of the game on this issue as well as the two previously mentioned ones. It’s assuring to know that even with all the hustle and bustle of partisan and intra-party conflicts in politics, there is a man in office who is going where others have dared not go. In this way, he is an inspiration and a reminder that a politician can be both a Democrat and a democrat.
Léalo en español.