Inside the battle between Nadler and Maloney, the Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee of Manhattan Dem High Boomerism

In mid-Manhattan’s battle between two stalwarts of the senescent wing of the Democratic Party, Jerry Nadler handily triumphed over his old ally and fellow House veteran Carolyn Maloney, comfortably beating her and three-time also-ran Suraj Patel. Both elected to Congress during the final months of the Bush administration — the first one, that is, in 1992 — Nadler and Maloney have marched in near-lockstep as faithful representatives of High Boomerism. 

How did it come to pass that these good soldiers — two veteran Congress members, both born early in the Truman presidency, as alike ideologically as two halves of a buttered bagel — were forced to confront each other in a battle as fierce and as devoid of substance as any the New York Democratic Party has ever seen … at least since Elizabeth Holtzman unseated Emanuel Cellar (born 1888) in 1972? 

Democratic politics and ideology in New York City are so uniform that the candidates, asked during a debate to draw distinctions between themselves, could barely come up with anything significant that happened in the last 20 years. “Carolyn voted for the Iraq War, and I voted against it,” Nadler mused. For her part, Maloney acknowledged that she and Nadler were equally liberal — only she was “more effective,” or better at it. 

When Patel accused Maloney of having sponsored a 2005 bill to regulate post office pension funding, Nadler rose gallantly to her defense, though only in a manner of speaking, of course — he spent the entire debate sitting down, while his opponents stood. “I just want to say that Carolyn is entirely right about the 2005 bill,” Nadler affirmed. 

Much has been made of how Nadler and Maloney’s dear friendship was twisted by the fires of contention, though some in the know scoff at the idea that there was much love lost between the two. “It’s not like they were taking baths together as children,” one well-placed Manhattan Dem observed.