Skip to content
Link copied to clipboard

Wu!

Can a New York pol channel our rage against the Machine?

Normally I wouldn't blog about a primary fight for lieutenant governor -- especially in New York! But in a surprisingly dull political season -- especially considering the stakes -- the unlikely rise in the Empire State of an unconventional, anti-establishment pol named Tim Wu may have something very interesting to say to a restless electorate all over the country.

Wu is an author and an expert on telecommunications and consumer rights -- he (somewhat) famously invented the phrase "net neutrality" to describe and advocate for the rights of internet users to have unfettered access to websites, something the telecommunications giants oppose. While not active in politics before, Wu entered the race for lieutenant governor this year as an informal running mate with Zephyr Teachout, the insurgent challenging the pro-business, pro-corruption policies of New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo. Wu's opponent is Cuomo's hand-picked No. 2, a "conservative Democrat" (yes, that's a thing) from upstate NY named Kathy Hochul.

Can Wu topple the machine? Signs point to 'yes' -- and yesterday the upstart gained the influential endorsement of the New York Times:

Although he lacks time in politics, Mr. Wu has an impressive record in the legal field, particularly in Internet law and policy. Widely known for coining the phrase "net neutrality," he has been an adviser to the Federal Trade Commission as part of his efforts on behalf of consumers to keep the Internet from "becoming too corporatized."

As lieutenant governor, he wants to speak out on complicated issues that are too often ignored in Albany like immigrant rights and broadband access needed by more than a million New Yorkers. Those would be worthy pursuits, but he will also have to learn quickly how to navigate Albany's difficult politics to make his views heard.

Part of the problem is that the anti-Obamacare, anti-environment Hochul sounds like a rank-and-file Republican, which is a bizarre strategy for winning a Democratic primary in deep-blue New York. But I think there's something going on here that speaks to the wider unease of the American electorate. It's a sense that the tired stances and predictable gridlocks of the Mitch McConnell -- and, yes, Hillary Clinton -- generation do not speak to the concerns of people with both feet in the 21st Century. That's why I think even folks from Pennsylvania -- where, yes, I'm well aware that we have our own problems, which are the exhaustingly predictable outcome of our tired machine politics -- should watch this race, to see if there's a newer way.

I was blown away by this, from an interview Wu gave to the Washington Post:

I'm studying the work of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson and Louis Brandeis, who managed to make what we would now call "wonky" telecom and antitrust issues into issues of mass popular appeal. A hundred years ago, antitrust and merger enforcement was front page news. And we live in another era of enormous private concentration. And for some reason we call all these "wonky issues." They're not, really. They affect people more than half a dozen other issues. Day to day, people's lives are affected by concentration and infrastructure. I'm trying to learn from Roosevelt and Brandeis to see how they conveyed — made them matter to the public.

For example, this morning I read the platform of the Progressive Party, from 1912. These guys were great. They make us look mellow. Theodore Roosevelt is like, We need to battle the invisible government, the unholy alliance of public and private corruption. I'm like, these guys have got it. So there's a long tradition of —

Can we expect that kind of rhetoric out of you?

Yeah. You can expect a progressive-style, trust-busting kind of campaign out of me. And I fully intend to bridge that gap between the kind of typical issues in electoral politics and questions involving private power.

I think what Wu gets -- in a way that traditional candidates like Clinton or Chris Christie don't, at least not yet -- is that people care about these things: The complete moral corruption of government, and where the individual stands in an era of unchecked corporate power. Wu -- and, I believe many voters (we'll find out to some extent on Tuesday) -- isn't just taking on "the machine," the political one, but our growing rage against the Machine, the actual one.

True conservatives say that government has too much power, and there are certain times (see "Tear Gas, in Ferguson") when I agree with them. Meanwhile, both major parties are beholden to the big corporations, whose might seems unstoppable. Wu is one of the few who's talking about empowering the third leg of that stool, the people. In Philadelphia -- a city that doesn't seem to have a clue about which direction we're headed after Mayor Nutter leaves City Hall in about 16 months -- we should all pay attention.

Blogger's note: Be kind to a worker this weekend, it's Labor Day! I'll be back at work on Monday night.