It’s interesting coming back to these articles now. A lot of why I find these the most magnetic readings has to do with contemporaneity; these are recent articles about recent events, so they feel more immediate.

The first two articles read about the same as the first time around, with the points emphasized by what we’ve learned. Obviously and unfairly, the the poor bear the greatest burden in post-Sandy New York. They’re the least able to rebuild, the least able to find a new place to live when rebuilding isn’t possible. All of this is awful, none of this is surprising. Bloomberg was many different kinds of mayor, from environmentally conscious to dangerously pro-police.

But the de Blasio article reads so much differently this time around. The article paints him as New Yorkers saw him before he took office. In the article, he is a progressive crusader. He is the naturally occurring next step following Occupy Wall Street and other grassroots progressive campaigns. He is the staunch opponent of neoliberalism and a force fore the public good. In light of the other pieces we’ve read this semester, this is not exactly the case. His housing plan, while certainly a bit more progressive than Bloomberg’s, is a modest improvement rather than a radical progressive change. de Blasio, while likely better than some of the alternatives, isn’t turning out to be exactly as progressive as voters expected, or as he portrayed himself.

On a side note, I overlooked something interesting the first time around on that article. Right near the end, the author predicts a period of Democratic dominance in national politics. We already know that isn’t exactly the case, as we are now faced with two Republican controlled houses of Congress.