FREE ESSAY ON D'AMATO VS. SCHUMER

D'AMATO VS. SCHUMER

An Old Fashion Dog Fight in the Big Apple:
D'Amato vs. Schumer
The 1998 U.S. Senate race in New York is one of the most heated and competitive political
battles in the country. New York has traditionally been a place where only the strong
willed, and tough at heart could compete; a place where crafty tactics, extensive
connections, and stocks of cash are essential aspects of political competition. This
year's combat field of a campaign has been no exception. The two primary candidates, 60
year old, incumbent, republican, Alfonse D'Amato, and 47 year old, democratic challenger,
Charles E. Schumer, have been pitted against each other, head to head, for much of the
campaign. Both candidates have strong backgrounds and powerful messages while also
pursuing rather abrasive, aggressive, and, in some instances, vindictive strategies. Most
current polls have the two contestants neck and neck, with Schumer gaining a slight
advantage in recent days. The fact of the matter is that D'Amato is a strong politician
that knows how to get things done; however, he also flaunts a capricious, and impulsive
style. With Al D'Amato, "what you see is what you get, and what you get is often vital,
sometimes useful and always unpredictable."1 Schumer, on the other hand, offers the
qualities of a serious lawmaker with more rooted values, sounder policy positions and a
deeper commitment to the common good; in addition, a deeper compassion for the average
citizen, and a professional tact and probity that each and every politician should
exhibit. It seems that it is time for a change; New York needs to be able to supply the
Senate and our nation with strong and balanced leadership. Leadership that best benefits,
reflects, and represents the quite diverse and heterogeneous population of New York. It
seems that the people of New York, might have just had enough with D'Amato and his
consistent embarrassing remarks and behavior on the floor of one of the most prominent
and distinguished institutions of our land. Though the outcome should surely prove to be
excitingly close, I feel comfortable predicting Charles Schumer the victor of the
grueling contest.
New York as a political state has a variety of significant characteristics. It is one of
the largest and most diverse states in the union, with a population of approximately 18.2
million people, housing a broad range of ethnicities, races, and income brackets. The
population is made up primarily of Caucasians (76.4% of voter pop.), African American's
(14.7% of voter pop.), Hispanics (11.2% of voter pop.), and Asians(3.8% of pop.).2 When
most people think of New York, they think of New York City; however, it is important to
note, that about 16% of the state is rural.3 Further, the population is also relatively
young, with a median age of about 35 and only 13% of the of the population over the age
of 65.4 In terms of an educated electorate, almost 45% of the population has a college
education.5 New York is typically the most Democratic of the larger states. The
Democratic influence used to come from middle-income Jews and Catholics in the outer
boroughs of New York City who still account for a large portion of the population.6
However, today, the Democratic vote comes from African Americans, Puerto Ricans and
liberal Manhattan whites.7 New York holds great influence in presidential elections as
well, with 33 electoral votes, the second-highest number behind California's 54. While in
presidential politics the Empire State tends to vote Democratic, in state politics voters
have trended Republican.8 New Yorkers elected Republican Rudy Giuliani as New York City
mayor in 1993 and again in 1997 and chose Republican George Pataki as governor in 1994.
More specifically, the state has about 47% registered Democrats and 30% registered
Republicans.9 Moreover, New Yorkers tend to vote in relatively the same proportion as the
rest of the nation; in 1996, approximately 48% of the voter population actually voted.10
The incumbent candidate, Alfonse D'Amato is a 60 year old, Italian, Roman Catholic,
three-term republican senator.11 He was first elected to the senate in 1980, and won
reelection in 1986 in a landslide victory. His reelection in 1992 was much closer, where
he procured 47% of the vote, and his opponent 41%.12 Prior to being elected to the
senate, D'Amato participated extensively in local politics, securing a number of local
elected positions; as well as practicing law.13 He presently serves on the Appropriations
and Select Intelligence committees; and chairs the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing,
and Urban Affairs.14 When examining D'Amato, one has to admire the energy and "bulldog"
drive that he has displayed in his 18 years in Washington; there is no doubt that he is a
fighter, and he gets things done. Whether it's to get a bigger and fairer share of the
pie for his region's transportation needs, to force the Swiss government to face up to
its responsibilities to Holocaust victims, to stand up for gay rights, to fight for
breast cancer research funds, or to make sure that every pothole in the state is filled,
D'Amato pursues his goals with single-minded determination and a seeming love of battle.
Though, their is the darker side of D'Amato. He has consistently, throughout his tenure
as senator, exhibited an impulsive style where he often says and does things without
thinking. He has been known to insult just about every ethnic, religious, and
constituency group their is. Further, D'Amato has been known to cater more to the large
donators and big political interests, than to his own constituents. On a number of
issues, he has also been seen to be too far to the right for most New Yorkers; such
issues include his support of the shutting down of the government as well as his
opposition to gun control. Yes, he does bring home a good portion of bacon, but he seems
more devoted to special interest than to the people. D'Amato, enjoys a modest advantage
in the suburban areas (46%) and residential areas (48%) as well as among whites (47%).
The challenger, democrat, Charles E. Schumer, is a 47 year old, Jewish, nine term
Congressmen representing the Ninth Congressional District in Brooklyn and Queens.15
Schumer serves as a senior member of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services and
on the Judiciary Committee, where he is the highest ranking Democrat on the Crime
Subcommittee.16 Prior to running for a position in the House, Schumer was elected to the
New York State Assembly at the age of 23, the youngest since Theodore Roosevelt.17 It has
been written that "in Schumer, D'Amato faces his most able, most talented opponent."18
Schumer has been a uniquely effective legislator whose intelligence, analytical ability
and unusual willingness to forge bipartisan coalitions has resulted in substantial
legislation. Most notably perhaps, Schumer is best-known for having championed the Brady
bill's five-day waiting period for handgun purchases and the assault weapons ban that was
enacted as part of the 1994 crime bill.19 In addition, like D'Amato, Schumer is a
quintessential New Yorker; he's aggressive, intense, and by no means shy to take credit
for his accomplishments. Important to note, is that in more than 25 years in public life
and 18 in the House of Representatives, he has managed to carve out a solid and moderate
record. He has been the House Democrats' leader on crime-fighting, crusading for more
money for police and prisons, tougher sentencing laws, tighter gun control and capital
punishment. His legislative record is impressive; he has been effective chiefly because
he seems to understand that it is essential to combine traditional liberal concerns on
issues such as gun control with equal demonstrations of concern about issues such as
neighborhood crime. Schumer does have his weaknesses. Primarily, this lies in his
relative disillusion to upstate interests. Schumer has been a representative of urban
interests for as long as he's been in politics. He tends to have a weak stance on rural
interests, and this could prove to substantially effect him at the polls. Indeed, Schumer
enjoys a rather large advantage in New York City (61%), and with Hispanics (67%) and
Blacks (68%). 
Unfortunately, particular strategies and tactics pursued by the respective candidates
during the election has clouded much of their positive attributes. Both candidates
certainly contributed their fair share of negative 30 second Ad bits. D'Amato, however,
is the king of the negative ad. His attack on Schumer, one of the hardest-working and
most conscientious members of Congress, for missing votes is outrageous and grossly
distorted. This is how D'Amato has always run his campaigns though, by knocking down the
other guy; and, indeed, this is where the reality of modern American politics seems to be
heading, for good or for worse. The record certainly shows that D'Amato is one of the
most enthusiastic practitioners of this "black art" and that anyone running against him
would have no choice but to attempt to "respond in kind or be buried in an avalanche of
mud."20 So, indeed, Schumer has replied, airing his own attacks; questioning D'Amato's
truthfulness and his ethics. Both candidates also have attempted to capitalize on each
and everyone of their opponents misspoken words, gravely distorting the importance and
the underlying reasons of the statements. It has simply become an absurd circus of "look
what he said about this and about that." This negative sentiment was not solely pursued
through television ad's mind you, the two candidates would take every opportunity to bash
their opponent: at press conferences, interviews, and the like. The unfortunate result,
is that these candidates spent far more money attacking each other, than promoting there
own positive images. This strategy has made the campaign one of the most expensive and
distasteful campaigns in American history. 
On another strategy front, D'Amato has consistently been able to win a large chunk of the
Jewish vote in the past; and indeed this has been crucial to his victories. During this
election cycle, he has focused a great deal of time and effort on maintaining this
advantage. He even went as far as saying "he will beat Schumer in his own backyard."21
Possibly the strongest argument for D'Amato's candidacy however, is that in a
Republican-controlled Senate he will be an inside force fighting for the interests of New
York and the region. It is an argument that cannot be easily dismissed; and it's an
argument D'Amato has been pounding home recently.
Yet another strategy implemented by both candidates, and by most candidates across the
nation for that matter, is publicly getting support for their election from other
prominent politicians. In the last weeks of the campaign, both Schumer and D'Amato have
made a blitz of public appearances with variety of politicians. Schumer could have been
seen with President Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Vice President Gore, Senator Moynehan, as
well as an assortment of local political leaders. D'Amato got the support of Governor
Pataki, Orthodox Jewish leaders, Mayor Giuliani, and a variety of local leaders. This
particular strategy has, in the past, proven to be quite effective if the proper mix of
supporters is chosen.
The bottom line is that Schumer and D'Amato are both unusually tenacious and dedicated
public servants. No matter who wins Nov. 3, New York is going to have a tough-minded,
street-smart proponent of its interests in the U.S. Senate. Unfortunately, the campaign
was wrought with negativism throughout, with each candidate almost personally pitted
against the other. Notably absent from the campaign was discussion on the policy
differences between them unfortunately. It is important, also, not to loose sight that
the spoils of this election are by no means diminutive. The victor will be provided with
nothing less than opportunity to represent, arguably, the strongest constituency in
America. 
Though, after in depth analysis, it become clear that New York is likely in store for its
first new Senator in D'Amato's spot in 18 years. D'Amato does have an impressive record
of not only getting things done, but getting things done for New York. However, he does
also have staunch conservative views on a variety of issues which seem to clearly place
him out of synch with his constituents. Furthermore, his historic, instinctive, and
improper out bursts have embarrassed New Yorkers enough. Chuck Schumer is the more
youthful, more tactful, more moderate choice. His record, though not perfect, falls more
in line with the sentiment of the New York population. Additionally, New York needs a
change; enough is enough. 18 years with the same representative is way too long of a time
for such a dynamic urban epicenter like New York. Schumer simply fits the bill at the
right time. The overwhelming negative tactics and strategies pursued throughout the
campaign are flat out deplorable. Each candidate deserves a portion of the blame. The
real issues, the differences in platforms, the policy differences, the differences that
mattered were barely brushed over. The campaign came down to who said what, when, and
how. It came down to a bickering match between two seemingly engaging candidates with
much to bicker about. The electorate is left with a formidable task after the smoke of
the battle clears, if it ever does. Who is best for us? The choice is not cut and dry,
black and white. In reality, the two candidates aren't much different, their both
hardcore New Yorkers, they both want the best for there home state, and they both have
proven themselves to be outstanding at the intriguing, and misunderstood game of
politicking. What are the differences? Unfortunately most voters will never know. They
were blinded by the overt negativism that plagued the campaign trails. In order to truly
uncover the differences, an in depth examination must be partaken. But this is too much
to ask for the electorate. When it all comes down to it, Schumer's advantages should
outweigh D'Amato's shortcomings.