Charles Stile at The Record uses his column today to analyze the under-reported “bromance” between Govs. Chris Christie and Andrew Cuomo. As Stile points out, the two have engaged in what he calls “a political non-aggression pact that has been in force behind the scenes for several years and has benefited the careers of both men.” Cuomo, for instance, has opted not to “hammer Christie throughout the furor” over the George Washington Bridge or to use his notoriety and name to help other Democrats — whether in New York or New Jersey. Christie has done the same, in return, staying above last year’s legislative races for the most part and staying out of the current New York gubernatorial race — despite being president of the Republican Governors Association.
Stile says there are “practical and strategic reasons why both men have collaborated rather than clashed.”
Both pitch themselves to the public as pragmatists who put the greater good ahead of partisan obligations. Attacking each other would only undermine that image.
Stile’s focus is on Christie (he does write for a New Jersey audience), in particular, Christie’s ability to co-opt Democrats by cutting deals that offer short-term gain to those Democrats while burnishing his image as a pragmatist.
What Stile doesn’t discuss — mostly due to space, I would argue — is the transactional nature of the relationships crafted by both Christie and Cuomo (this has been written about in a number of places, but this offers a good overview of what I mean). Nor does he get into the ideological commonalities, which are striking once you remove social issues from the table. Both have placed the health of the corporate sector above other constituencies; both have made budget cutting their mantra; both have targeted public-employee unions; both have attacked public pensions; and both back the expansion of charter schools and school choice.
These commonalities — and the apparent truce (of not alliance) between the two governors — actually says a lot more about Cuomo than Christie. At least the New Jersey governor is being consistent. He’s a conservative and he has attempted to govern as one, with the occasional bone tossed to his liberals (this is New Jersey, after all).
Cuomo, however, is a Democrat and the son of one of the leading liberals of the last quarter of the 20th Century. But he has never been a progressive — he is from the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party, meaning he is more in tune with corporate interests than workers’ interests. And while he has won some important victories on same-sex marriage and gun control, he has reversed course on campaign finance and ethics reform.
All of this is well-known — and it is why he faced a spirited primary challenge from Zephyr Teachout. He is going to breeze to re-election (just like Christie) and his name will remain in play as a presidential contender, though his national reputation (again, like Christie’s and also like Hillary Clinton’s) is based mostly on a press-constructed image and not on what he actually stands for.
The social-issue efforts, of course, will make Cuomo palatable to Democrats, or palatable enough to excuse the rest of his agenda — should the field clear (i.e., should Hillary opt out) and he toss his hat into the ring.
Send me an e-mail.
Hank Kalet 