Playboy Interview: Edward Koch

Some time before New York City's mayoral election last fall, New Yorkers were treated to a widely publicized press photo. Hizzoner Ed Koch was seen loping across the Egyptian desert astride a camel, his famous smile framed by a burnoose fluttering in the wind--indeed, looking for all the world like Koch of Arabia. Shortly thereafter, while campaigning for re-election, Koch made an appearance at the Central Park zoo and reporters wanted to know about his bynow famous ride. A TV reporter asked if hizzoner would now consider repeating the stunt, only this time with a nearby caged Bengal tiger. Koch paused, looked for an instant at the animal and then turned back, his smile still in place. "The mayor is not a coward," he intoned. "But neither is the mayor a schmuck!"

Another time, Koch was dedicating a new shopping center. Adept at working an audience, he seemed to have the crowd with him. Suddenly, a black member of the racially mixed group shouted, "We want John Lindsay!" Again Koch paused, to reflect on the reference to the former mayor, whose "liberal" administration Koch blames for many of the city's present troubles. Then he peered at the audience: "Everybody who wants Lindsay back, raise your hands," he commanded. A few hands went up. Koch leaned forward and bellowed: "Dummies!" The audience cheered.

Such stories characterize New York City's Edward Irving Koch. Recently re-elected by an overwhelming majority, Koch has been credited with saving the nation's most celebrated city from bankruptcy when only four of America's larger cities have managed to remain solvent. A major accomplishment, certainly; but his flamboyant and uniquely outspoken style attracts as much attention nationally as his fiscal policies. For Roger Rosenblatt of Time, he is New York's "nut uncle," his entire being "fused with the life of his lunatic city.... Koch can be brave, hilarious, generous, protective, occasionally gracious and more rarely, touching." He is the consummate showman, the master of well-timed one-liners, who, for The New York Times, has "defied enough conventional wisdom to fill a textbook." With his readiness to excoriate the "wackos," "richies" and "schmucks," Koch does not suffer fools gladly. But at the same time, he prides himself on being a man of the ypeople, ready to listen to his constituents in movie lines, on street corners and at subway stops. He refuses to mince his words, even referring to himself as Mayor Mouth. He has provoked unions and management, blacks and whites, Jews and gentiles, while still retaining enough support to have run for re-election last fall with the endorsement of both the Democratic and the Republican Parties. That he won with the largest margin in the city's history is the stuff of political legend.

Humor, irreverence and chutzpah all add to the folklore surrounding Ed Koch. Still, there is the man's keen sense of Realpolitik: Even his most ardent critics will acknowledge his real accomplishments. While other urban mayors have been bowed by inflation and Federal cutbacks, Koch has determinedly stuck to his guns as a born-again fiscal conservative and has managed to get New York City out of the red. Once a free-spending liberal Democrat in Congress, he now boasts of having rebuilt the city's tax base. Although he inherited a $712,000,000 deficit in January 1978, when he first took office, Koch's policies produced a budget surplus in 1981, the first in 15 years. So, too, in January 1978, Wall Street had rescinded the city's bond rating. Through a successful lobbying effort, the new mayor extended Federal loan guarantees, and in 1980, years ahead of the financial community's forecasts, he achieved an investment-grade rating for the city's municipal bonds, which restored New York's ability to raise capital for the repair of its physical plant without relying on Federal and state supports. Koch also began to bargain with municipal unions "at arm's length" and assiduously trimmed personnel from the city payroll. By wooing industry, he also spurred construction-- so much so that the dollar value of new commercial space has increased nearly sixfold since 1977, with a corresponding increase of 120,000 jobs in the private sector, as compared with a loss of 600,000 jobs during the previous eight years.

But not everyone loves Ed Koch. Among New York's traditionally liberal movers and shakers, there are those who claim that the improvements Koch boasts of having accomplished were at the expense of the poor, specifically at the expense of minorities. Koch, with characteristic bluntness, has indeed opposed racial quotas and busing; he has denounced "poverticians" and "poverty pimps" in the course of revamping the city's poverty agencies; and he has also opposed, in favor of slum rehabilitation, low-cost public housing in middle-class neighborhoods. Openly, unabashedly, he boasts of being the champion for the middle class, which has led more than a few observers to charge that he has forsaken his "liberal" roots.

And indeed, Koch's background would suggest a liberal calling. Born in the Bronx on December 12, 1924, Ed Koch was one of three children of Polish-Jewish immigrants. His father, Louis, lost his fur business in the Depression and moved the family to Newark, New Jersey. They all went to work in a catering hall owned by a relative. By 1941, the Koch family had resettled in Brooklyn, and Ed enrolled in City College. Two years later, at the age of 19, he joined the Army, saw combat and then was posted to Bavaria as a "de-Nazification" specialist. Returning home, he earned his law degree at New York University Law School and soon went into private practice.

Koch's political debut came in 1952, when he campaigned for Democratic Presidential nominee Adlai Stevenson on street corners--flag, soapbox and all. When he moved to Greenwich Village in 1956, he became involved in liberal reform politics, the high point of which was his ousting of Democratic district leader Carmine DeSapio, famous as one of the most powerful "machine bosses" in New York City.

In 1964, Koch spent his vacation defending civil rights workers in Mississippi. In 1968, he became a U. S. Congressman, winning the seat once held by then-mayor John Lindsay, even though Lindsay had refused to endorse him. Settled in Washington, D.C., Koch returned to New York City every week to greet voters at subway stations. "How 'm I doing?" he asked over and over again. It was the line he had made famous, delivered always with an appealing grin, and his identity soon became fixed in the minds of New Yorkers. He ran for mayor for the first time in 1973 but abandoned his bid early for lack of funds. In November 1976, he again declared himself a candidate for mayor. Again, Koch was the underdog. But by the time the returns were counted, he had triumphed, beating his closest opponent, Mario Cuomo, by a scant 125,000 votes. But running for re-election last fall, he was no longer the underdog. For the first time in his political career, he was considered a shoo-in. His famous "How 'm I doing?" was answered with a resounding 76 percent majority.

When Playboy decided to plumb the Koch personality, we asked free-lance writer Peter Manso to conduct the interview. Manso was one of the principal brain trusters of the highly unorthodox Norman Mailer--Jimmy Breslin mayoral campaign in 1968, which he subsequently chronicled in his book, "Running Against the Machine." Manso reports:

"I went in with the assumption that Koch would be open, voluble and true to his nickname, 'Eddie the Lip.' Wrong. No sooner had we gotten going than it became clear that the man is a master--a professional even among politicians--at parrying the press. When he doesn't mince his words, he knows why he's doing it. Part of the smoke screen is charm--and Ed Koch is undeniably a charming man. Part of it is his insistence that his candor and outspokenness make him different from the usual politician. But I couldn't help being reminded of Phil Silvers' Sergeant Bilko, who naïvely riffles the cards, asking, 'What is this game, pok-ere?'--then scoops up all the winnings.

"In many respects, Koch plays it close to the vest, despite his flamboyance. Part of it is that his energy--some would call him a whirling dervish--does keep people at arm's length. He has an uncanny ability to withstand repeated probing, almost as if somewhere along the line, he's realized he can outlast most questioners. And, yes, there's the other device, which I can only call 'street smarts'--the famous Koch mixture of abruptness, shtick humor and lack of decorum.

"The mayor's commitment is singular, his allegiance solely to what he regards as his city. He is New York's greatest booster, and over the course of our several weekends' taping, my strategy was to loop back, returning to such touchy issues as New York's crime rate and horrendous mass-transportation problem in the hope that he might admit to doubt. There was a lot of interrupting, laughing and occasional yelling as I tried to persuade him, or provoke him, to comment on the difficulties of living in a big city today.

"But, no, Ed Koch remained adamant: New York is terrific, second only to Xanadu. And despite our banter, or perhaps because of it, I realized that in a certain respect, hizzoner was indeed an emblem of the city. He can be brutal, decisive, sentimental, angry and obsessively loyal. He emerges as a man with an opinion on everything (in his next life, he may become a New York cabby), ranging from what he sees as growing anti-Semitism in U. S. foreign policy to the all-important question of whether New York City is livable. Is he consistent? Like a tack, and I have no doubt that Mayor Ed Koch will remain in City Hall for just as long as he wants. That, or for as long as the country at large allows New Yorkers to keep him as their private trophy."

[Q] Playboy: As mayor of New York City, you've made national headlines and are probably best known for your blunt candor and outspokenness. Why, then, as we begin our first interview session, do you have two advisors at your side and your own tape recorder running?

[A] Koch: Simple. I don't want there to be any question as to what was said. We always have a member of our press staff at interviews, although we don't always use a tape recorder. On several occasions, reporters have made major errors on matters affecting the city, which they then had to correct when we produced the tape. It's never secret, however, and just as you're using one, I prefer it that way.

[Q] Playboy: You represent New York and you don't want the city misquoted, is that it?

[A] Koch: Yeah, I think so. I don't want it to sound smug, but I've become identified with New York, and I think people like me and I think they like New York. A mayor can be a downer or an upper. I think I'm an upper. But I won't dissemble or deceive. I may remain mute on a subject. I don't have to offer myself to the caldron. But if I say something, I believe it.

When I first became mayor, it used to upset people; it drove my advisors crazy. They would have preferred more ambiguity, so I wouldn't ruffle so many feathers, but now they see it as a strength, not a liability. The important factor--what voters see in me--is intellectual honesty, meaning that I say exactly what I believe, even when it's not popular. I say it privately and publicly.

[Q] Playboy: Which you claim accounts for your popularity among the voters, your recent landslide re-election. All that would suggest a decidedly high opinion of the electorate.

[A] Koch: What do you think I'm saying? I got more than 75 percent of the vote. A major part was my honesty, of course. In the past, I've admitted that maybe I ought to take tact lessons, which is a flip way of saying I don't have a bedside manner. I talk to all people exactly the same. Most politicians don't believe in this. They assume voters want pie-in-the-sky promises, but I've always worked on the premise that there's this extraordinary common sense out there. That was the slogan of my campaign: "Common sense." My opponents said to the voters. "Ask yourself the question that Reagan asked when he ran against Carter: 'Are you better off today than you were four years ago?' " But the voters in New York knew that wasn't the proper question. It was me who found the proper questions: "Did Koch get the biggest bang for the buck? Did he do the best possible with the reduced dollars available or was there someone who could have done it better?"

[Q] Playboy: How much of the attention is paid to you and how much to the city itself?

[A] Koch: People are interested in New York and they're interested in me for whatever it is I add to it. But if it weren't me, there'd be attention paid because it's New York City. The place has a mystique. It's the largest city in the country, the city the newspapers report on. Things happen here that get attention; elsewhere, they're ignored. There's a sense of mystery, danger, all the things that go into this special city, with its 7,500,000 people. It's so varied, so different. In 1964, Barry Goldwater made a remark that I think he now regrets, namely, that if it were possible, he would saw off the Eastern Seaboard-- meaning, basically, New York City--and ship it back to Europe. Obviously, he was referring to the foreign influences here, the fact that we're made up of so many different groups. And it's that very diversity, those differences, that so intrigue people.

[Q] Playboy: But you're aware that many people regard New York as a cesspool, even though they may be fascinated by it?

[A] Koch: It's a love-hate relationship, and depending upon the moment in time, it shifts. From 1975 to 1978, there was a lot more hate than love. Nowadays, I think it's turned around, starting with the Democratic Convention of 1976, when the Texas delegation held up its We love New York sign. The Bicentennial, with its tall ships, helped as well. I think I've contributed to the positive energy, too, and it's a sense that the city isn't standing still. This is what people tell me and I accept it.

[Q] Playboy: Even though according to the census, almost 1,000,000 people left the city between 1970 and 1980?

[A] Koch: Uh-huh, and they're coming back. How do I know? My sister came back two years ago. The middle class left because they had the wherewithal to leave and the services were deteriorating. Now that the services are improving, they're coming back. They found that they had traded deterioration for a sterile environment in the suburbs.

[Q] Playboy: And they're prepared to put up with the dirt, the crime and the inconvenience?

[A] Koch: Sure. Have you ever lived in the suburbs? I haven't, but I've talked to people who have, and it's sterile. It's nothing, it's wasting your life. And people do not wish to waste their lives once they've seen New York! I think we've gone through enormous changes, especially a change in outlook. Remember, under Lindsay particularly, the city's raison d'être was to be Fun City, Welfare City, anything but a business city. By creating a climate for jobs and profits in the private sector, we've brought about a big change. When I first suggested "Common sense" as my campaign slogan, my media advisor, David Garth, didn't like it; but now, he has no hesitation at all. It says everything, because in addition to describing me, it characterizes the city--what I take to be this new sense that we're not standing still.

[Q] Playboy: By that, we take it that you mean things are getting better. But despite the city's solvency, there are many who feel things are getting worse, that city services are deteriorating.

[A] Koch: People compare New York City with the perfect city, with nirvana, with El Dorado. What you have to compare it with is other cities. We have estimated that we'll be spending $30 billion over the next ten years to repair our infrastructure--far more, proportionately, than cities like Chicago, Boston, Detroit and a host of others. Does Detroit get the same kind of publicity?

[Q] Playboy: What are you saying? That people have been misled, brainwashed by a negative press?

[A] Koch: No, I haven't said that about the press. In fact, I think it's terrific that people are so interested in us, that they want to come here, either to visit or live. But if you're gonna talk about New York City, you have to talk about it in the context of other cities, which raises a small difficulty. Namely, that there is no other city like New York City and its 7,500,000 people. You can take several of our larger cities in the country--say, Boston and Chicago and San Francisco, plus the others--and fit all their population into New York. So while our problems are proportionately comparable to and in some cases even less than others', the dimensions here are so large that they become sui generis. From 1969 to 1977, we lost 600,000 jobs. That's one and a half times the size of Buffalo, the second largest city in the state of New York. In Detroit, they have 24 percent unemployment! Do we ever hear about that?

[Q] Playboy: But you're dodging our question: despite the statistics, doesn't the fact that many people see New York City life as a series of assaults---

[A] Koch: That's ridiculous.

[Q] Playboy: Well, do women feel comfortable walking in the streets at night? Can anyone safely stroll through Central Park at night?

[A] Koch: How many women feel comfortable walking at night in Boston, or in Birmingham or San Francisco? When I lived in Washington, D.C., in 1969, it was scary, and if you walked the streets alone at night, you worried about it. But I have never--never--worried about walking the streets of the city of New York. Obviously, there are places you don't walk; I'm talking about my own residential area.

[Q] Playboy: Your own residential area? Only recently, the daughter of [former] New Jersey governor Brendan Byrne was attacked down the street from Gracie Mansion.

[A] Koch: What are you saying? We're 20th down on the FBI list of rapes. That means 19 other cities are more dangerous.

[Q] Playboy: Again, let's not keep talking statistics. Let's focus on impressions and perceptions, the years of negative publicity---

[A] Koch: We brought that on ourselves by our arrogance prior to 1975. We got our comeuppance when we suddenly found ourselves on the edge of bankruptcy. But New York is very appreciative that the rest of the country helped us when we were on our ass. We were chastened, and since the country helped us, there's a civility today that wasn't here before, an appreciation that we're living in a terrific city. It's obvious. Don't you agree with that?

[Q] Playboy: A lot of people wouldn't, no. And probably, some New Yorkers would be a lot less polite about it.

[A] Koch: They'd think that I'm talking cant, is that what you're saying?

[Q] Playboy: Cant, yes. But beyond that, they'd claim that the place often feels unlivable. Hostile, cynical and brutal.

[A] Koch: People who live in the city? Go talk to cabdrivers and cops. They have the best---

[Q] Playboy: We did just that, coming over here to Gracie Mansion this morning. Talked to the cabbie---

[A] Koch: Yeah, what'd he say?

[Q] Playboy: He said, "I'm carrying a gun." And it brought to mind Howard Beale in Network, the lunatic news commentator shouting, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore."

[A] Koch: Yeah, and not too long ago, some guy committed a robbery on Fifth Avenue and passers-by beat him to within an inch of his life. The cops had to rescue him. [Laughs]

[Q] Playboy: You're laughing now as you recall this. Why? Just how is it funny?

[A] Koch: I see humor in a lot of things. But my answer is akin to what I said to the cops after I was assaulted---

[Q] Playboy: The incident at the doctors' convention, at the time you proposed closing Sydenham Hospital?

[A] Koch: Yes. I was addressing 3000 paramedics and doctors in the Hilton Hotel, and just as I began, some people got up to demonstrate. Suddenly, I felt a hand around my throat. It came from the rear. Then a fist socked me in the eye. There was something in the fist, and it was coming down my cheek. It turned out later that it was an egg, but at that moment, I believed I was the subject of an assassination. My adrenaline's working, obviously; I don't know what's happening and for all I know, I'm fighting for my life. So I grabbed the guy's hand and wrestled him to the ground. Turns out he was a doctor from San Diego, part of the demonstration, throwing eggs at me. I have this guy down on the floor and I want to kill him, I'm so angry. Then my security man comes to help me and he's holding the guy down and he sees that I'm set to kick him in the balls or in the head. Some vital place! I want to kill him! And my guard looked up pleadingly. Without uttering a word, he was saying, "Don't." And I didn't. But later, I described this feeling to a class of rookie cops, that I'd wanted to kill him because I thought he had tried to kill me. Instead, I eventually filed a criminal complaint and testified, and 18 months later, the guy was given 30 days in jail and a $1000 penalty. The judge told me that very few people in public life ever pursue such cases. But I had to do it. Otherwise, they'll do it again to somebody else.

[Q] Playboy: Do you worry about assassination?

[A] Koch: When George Moscone, the mayor of San Francisco, was killed, I was asked for my reaction. It shook me because Moscone wasn't killed by a stranger; he was killed by somebody he knew, who had access to his office. The point is that you can have all the security in the world but you still can't protect yourself. I also happen to believe in the doctrine of beshert, which means "God ordains"--your life is laid out, predestined. Obviously, you're not supposed to make it easy for those who want to dispose of you--you don't throw yourself in front of a train--but nevertheless, when it's all said and done, I'm a child of God, as we all are, and whatever He wants to do with me, He will do with me.

[Q] Playboy: Why be so fatalistic, even passive? Why not fight back?

[A] Koch: I understand the feeling--that's what I told those cops. Just like I understand the feelings of those people who beat up the robber on Fifth Avenue. That's why I laughed. I have the same feeling--me, the mayor.

[Q] Playboy: Aren't there a lot of middle-class people who more and more approve of that kind of behavior?

[A] Koch: Yes, but we will not tolerate it. If someone engages in vigilantism, we're gonna put his ass in jail.

[Q] Playboy: How did you feel about the film Death Wish?

[A] Koch:[Laughs] Oh, I thought it was terrific, but at the same time, I deplore what the guy did; it was vigilantism and, as such, unacceptable, intolerable.

[Q] Playboy: But you also understood?

[A] Koch: Sure. You could identify with the guy's need for revenge, even though it's not permissible in a society of law. Still, I thought it was a terrific action movie.

[Q] Playboy: Isn't it also deplorable--symbolic of everything we're talking about?

[A] Koch: Oh, please. Look, I like movies. The Warriors--very stylized, almost a ballet about gangs in the subways. It was wonderful. The fact that I would like Death Wish, though, doesn't mean I have to approve of its message.

[Q] Playboy: What about the argument that self-defense should be permissible if the police or our laws can't protect people in the first place?

[A] Koch: It's unacceptable, just as unacceptable as a totalitarian society, where you have very little crime but also very few civil rights to begin with. I'm sure you'd be safer walking the streets in Moscow than in any major city in the United States. I also know that the Soviets have their gulags.

[Q] Playboy: Your answers are consistent with the theme, so common in newspapers and magazines, that to be a New Yorker, you have to have a heartier, walk-through-the-troubles, grin-and-bear-it attitude.

[A] Koch: Well, there is a feistiness and an ability to roll with the punches. But you can talk about the city of New York in a vacuum and come to any conclusions you want. Now, I think we're getting a hold on crime here and throughout the country. Everybody's concerned about it. You know my anecdote about senior citizens? When I was a congressman in 1973, I spoke to a group of senior citizens who wanted to know what I was going to do about crime. I said, "You're right, crime's the number-one issue. But ladies and gentlemen, I know a judge who was just mugged, and guess what he did? He called a press conference and told reporters, 'This mugging will in no way affect my decisions in matters of this kind.' " An elderly lady stood up in the back of the room and called out, "Then mug him again!" [Laughs] It's a marvelous story; it always gets a response from people.

[Q] Playboy: It is a good story. But your critics claim that your constant references to the middle class, to a reliance on what you call common sense, is just a buzz word, an appeal to white-middle-class fears and resentments.

[A] Koch: Bullshit! In prior administrations, it was taboo to talk about the middle class. It was part of the Sixties and Seventies syndrome that somehow, the middle class wasn't the group that you ought to court. "Who wants their lifestyle?" the rhetoric went. "Why should the middle class be elevated?" asked many of the radicals. So it startled a lot of people to have a mayor come in and say, "I think the middle-class lifestyle is terrific. I believe we oughta kiss the feet of the middle class for saving this town, since they're the ones who pay the taxes and create the jobs for the poor." And since I'm not able to do very much for them in terms of increasing services, at least they should know they have a friend in City Hall who wants them to prosper, who wants them to stay here and who doesn't take them for granted. Prior to my coming to office, it was always "What can we do for the poor, how do we expand welfare?" Recently, I testified before a legislative committee on homeless men and women, the sick people out there who sleep in the streets. One of the legislators complained about welfare centers that supposedly weren't giving out the necessary information, and then he demanded to know, "Well, are you going out there, Koch, to get people to apply for welfare and for Medicaid and telling them about all these programs?" I said, "No." Under Lindsay, they brought us to bankruptcy by going out and telling people to come in--"C'mon, get on the welfare rolls, you don't even have to file an affidavit." "No, I don't do that," said I to this legislator, who then accused me of violating my constitutional oath. I replied, "No, I don't think so, and 76 percent of the people recently indicated that they don't think so, either."

[Q] Playboy: But popular or not, by emphasizing the middle class, aren't you practicing a kind of benign neglect of the poor?

[A] Koch: Look, it's the middle class, which pays the taxes, that allows me to spend 56 percent of our budget on 26 percent of the people, the poor. I know that jobs are the key, since lots of jobs have left this town, but we have 120,000 new jobs over and above those we had on December 31, 1977, and I know it's the middle class that has created those jobs. I mean, who do you think owns the factories, the stores and the places where jobs are created? It ain't the rich and it certainly ain't the poor! So I wish I could do more for the middle class. Why do you think they went down to Florida during the Lindsay Presidential campaign and put up this blimp with the slogan Lind-say spells Tsooris [trouble]? Who do you think did that? The middle class, and not just the Jewish middle class. So now I'm saying to them, I'm not doing that to you, I understand your problems, plus the fact that when I upgrade the cops and the firemen and the educational system, I'm affecting the city as a whole.

[Q] Playboy: By the same token, however, there is no blimp over Harlem saying, Koch is cool.

[A] Koch: No, but there is a blimp over Harlem that says, we're for Koch; 60 percent of us are, because that's the way the black community voted in the last election.

[Q] Playboy: We'll come back to that. But the so-called Sixties syndrome you refer to--you sound as if it offended you, as if the counterculture was a repudiation of everything you personally cherished.

[A] Koch: Yes, I think it was a license to do anything. What happened in the Sixties was that the values of integrity and hard work and industriousness no longer counted, were no longer perceived as worthy of reward. This even extended to Government, where the attitude was, to hell with the middle class. It was a loss of balance. I don't know of any period when there wasn't something good and something bad, when we didn't move away from the center and then come back again. In the Sixties, however, it went too far.

[Q] Playboy: Does your appreciation of middle-class values, of hard work and responsibility, reflect your own upbringing?

[A] Koch: Sure. We were poor, we all worked very hard. We lived in the Bronx, an all-Jewish neighborhood, low income, very safe. The rich one in the family was my uncle Max, who I think was a bootlegger in addition to being involved in the clothing business in Manhattan. Then the family moved to Newark, New Jersey, where another uncle ran the largest catering hall and dance palace in the city. Since my father's fur business had gone bankrupt during the Depression, he was given the hat-check concession, which became our major source of livelihood. I didn't get paid; I got an allowance. My mother and brother worked there, too.

[Q] Playboy: Was money always a problem for you?

[A] Koch: Yes. I think our income was $60 a week for five people. We never went hungry, though. Sometimes my father had to go out and borrow five dollars from somebody to make sure that Friday night was a good Shabbath dinner. We weren't religious, but Friday night was always terrific. There were times when he didn't have enough money, but even so, everything was stable and nice. My father was a much more accepting person. My mother was the stronger of the two.

[Q] Playboy: Aside from the Bronx and Newark, were you exposed to other parts of the New York area when you were growing up?

[A] Koch: When I was growing up, Manhattan was another planet! I didn't formulate it in my head at the age of seven, but what were you going to do in Manhattan? What was my mother going to do, go to the theater? Ridiculous! If she went to the theater, it was the Yiddish theater, on the Lower East Side. That's not the Manhattan most people talk about. Forty-second Street was Manhattan, and nobody lived there. I never heard of Park Avenue or Greenwich Village until I was in college.

[Q] Playboy: You first left home when you went into the Army?

[A] Koch: That's when I grew up, yeah. I became more self-aware because it was my first real exposure to different kinds of people and ideas, to non-New Yorkers, say. I enjoyed the cosmopolitan aspect of it.

[Q] Playboy: Coming from this relatively insulated background, didn't you find the Army a bit threatening? The great World War II novels From Here to Eternity and The Naked and the Dead both dwell on the anti-Semitism of the period.

[A] Koch: I never felt threatened as a Jew. I had only one anti-Semitic incident in the Army, in basic training at Camp Croft, South Carolina. My platoon was about 15 or 20 percent Jewish, a lot of them from New York, refugees from Europe, and what triggered it was that the Jews were not terribly athletic and found the obstacle courses difficult. The situation was made worse by this one smartass Jewish kid who would always have the answer when the sergeant asked a question. It irritated a lot of people. One guy in particular was constantly making anti-Semitic remarks, and I began thinking, I'm not strong enough to beat him up but I'm going to build my strength.

So I practice, getting stronger, until about the 15th or 16th week of basic training, when he makes another of these brutalizing comments. I walk over, grab him by the neck and say, "OK, when we get back to the barracks, you and I are gonna have it out." He says, "What are you talking about?"--'cause he didn't consider me Jewish, I could do the obstacle course, right? When we got back to the barracks, the Jewish kid who has created the problem now offers to help, and I say, "Get the fuck away, you prick! It's because of you I have this problem!" So we go out, me and the other guy, and we fight. There was a big crowd, 50 people or more. He knocks me down, I get up. I don't want this to sound like a movie, but he knocks me down again and again I get up. And I hit him. Finally we finish. He's won, of course, but for the next several weeks, there's not one anti-Semitic comment in the whole company. Not one. I felt terrific.

[Q] Playboy: It really was a scene out of From Here to Eternity. Later on during the war, you supposedly became a de-Nazification specialist in Bavaria.

[A] Koch: That's an overstatement. After the war, I was in Bavaria, in a small military detachment near Würzburg. My job consisted of replacing public officials who were Nazis with non-Nazis. And believe me, if there was anything I could do to engage in retribution, I was going to do it. Replacing people in public office, confiscating property for the military government, taking over houses. There were always Germans coming in to tell you who the Nazis were, but they all claimed they had Jewish grandmothers.

[Q] Playboy: Did you ever visit one of the concentration camps?

[A] Koch: Not during the war. I went to Munich in 1961 specifically to see Dachau, I don't know that I can even describe the experience. At Dachau, they have a little museum.... I was crying. I remember the camp itself was very hard to find--they sort of conceal it from you--but once I'd seen the furnaces, the crematoria, I didn't stay very long. Afterward, I was outraged, outraged that the world should have let this happen. And it did, no question about it. Every country participated. France, England, the U. S., all of them. It's an enormous blot on the record of every Western country that they didn't do something.

[Q] Playboy: The abiding feeling of Jewish life is the specter of the Holocaust---

[A] Koch: It certainly is. Never again.

[Q] Playboy: And you believe it could happen again?

[A] Koch: Absolutely. That's why I speak out when there's an atrocity in Paris or Austria or Vienna, or in Northern Ireland or Uganda, for that matter. Every country is capable of the vilest of excesses and almost every country has been. The Turks destroyed the Armenians in what is really known as the first Holocaust. The Spanish Inquisition expelled the Jews. In Ethiopia, they have destroyed blacks. Every country is capable of genocide.

[Q] Playboy: As one of the country's most prominent Jewish politicians, you seem to feel the need or responsibility to speak out for Israel. How much of this is personal and how much is a factor of your being mayor of a city---

[A] Koch: That has more Jews than Tel Aviv?

[Q] Playboy: Well, isn't it true that New York City is perceived nationally, perhaps with a taint of anti-Semitism to it, as a Jewish town?

[A] Koch: Do you really think so? Look at all our black Jews, all our Puerto Rican Jews, all our [laughs] ... Irish Jews!

[Q] Playboy: But seriously, you have come out very strongly in support of Menachem Begin's policies in Israel. You could be considered a hard liner when it comes to Israel.

[A] Koch: Begin's an extraordinary man, even though he's occasionally perceived as a little too inflexible. I don't agree with everything he's done and I've said so. But when a nation like Israel has been under constant attack and you see its so-called allies running away out of fear of losing the petrodollar--I'm talking about the English, the Austrians and the French in particular--then what you're talking about are governments that have engaged in anti-Semitic actions. The best illustration is Lord Carrington, the British foreign minister, who's a schmuck. He claims that the P.L.O. isn't engaged in terrorism. I say, thank God there's a Menachem Begin who has the strength to stand up for his people. Nobody's perfect, mind you, but if Israel had a more malleable prime minister, there'd be no hope; they'd just give way on everything.

[Q] Playboy: How important to you is Israel's security?

[A] Koch: As a Jew who happens to be an American, I place American security first. I want to say it only once: These are my loyalties--the country, the city, then Israel. In that order.

[Q] Playboy: As we said before, you're the best-known Jewish politician in America today--

[A] Koch: Isn't that nice! [Laughs]

[Q] Playboy: You don't think the description fits?

[A] Koch: If I'm not, I'm one of them. OK.

[Q] Playboy: Do you see anti-Semitism growing in this country?

[A] Koch: Yes. I certainly saw it in the attempt to smear the opponents of the AWACS sale to Saudi Arabia. But more broadly, there's a kind of ground-swell feeling that Israel no longer has the right to express itself. But what do you think Saudi Arabia was doing in the case of the AWACS? Prince Fahd or the royal family was supposedly given a room in the Senate building while the AWACS vote was going on. So it's become a double standard. If the Jewish nation of Israel stands up and talks about its security, then it's attacked as being too Jewish, engaging in something that nobody else is doing, when in fact everybody else is doing it with impunity. Even more egregious is the line that the American Jewish community is part of some Israeli lobby. Well, so what? Why shouldn't we defend Israel? What should we do, go to the gas chambers silently?

[Q] Playboy: What about the kind of remark that seems to be chic among some Europeans--Oriana Fallaci, for instance, said in her Playboy Interview that she believed the American media are controlled by the Jews.

[A] Koch: That's self-evidently false. Obviously, there are some Jews in the media, but here in New York, the most media-oriented city in the world, only one of the three newspapers has Jewish ownership. Anyone who says that the media are controlled by Jews is meshuga [crazy]. But I've heard that before. It's a leftwing point of view, part of the current anti-Semitism that comes from radicals. For example, I believe that Jesse Jackson has engaged in anti-Semitic remarks, and besides, he went to Lebanon and kissed Arafat on the cheek, gave his blessing to terrorism. I've never been supportive of Jesse Jackson; I always thought he was bad news on this issue. Obviously, he's done a lot of good things motivating black kids. But now we're talking about anti-Semitism. The key phrase today is anti-Zionism, which is used to conceal anti-Semitism. In fact, though, in this case, the two are one and the same.

[Q] Playboy: Do you see anti-Semitism growing in Europe?

[A] Koch: Obviously, the bombings of synagogues in France were terrorist acts directed at Israel. True, they may very well have been terrorist acts directed at Jews, too. I'm not going to argue that. But no, I don't see it escalating in Europe in the sense that we've been talking about.

[Q] Playboy: But you just said that anti-Zionism is the same as anti-Semitism.

[A] Koch: But in Europe, it isn't specifically related to the Jews. We're past that. They don't give a fuck about Jews! For most European countries, it's cravenness. What they care about is Arab money!

[Q] Playboy: How do you feel about Arabs' buying up property in New York City?

[A] Koch: I don't have any problem with that so long as they're not able to buy up the media. I'm not someone who says Arabs can't come in. In fact, I'd welcome them to come and buy the World Trade Center. They have the money; let them put it back on the tax rolls. I do very well with the Arabs who live in New York. Why? Because I've spoken out for the poor Lebanese, and even when I was in Congress, I condemned the slaughter of Lebanese Christians. I mean, it's criminal what's happened there.

[Q] Playboy: Since you've publicly criticized Reagan's stance on Israel, what do you think, in general, of recent Presidents' attitudes toward Jews?

[A] Koch: Actually, I happen to believe that Ronald Reagan is very sympathetic to Jews. When he came to see me in 1977, he said, "I'm so pleased that you've spoken out against what Carter is doing on Israel." At the time, Carter people were participating in the U.N. resolutions denouncing Israel, and I think Reagan's statement to me was genuine, more than campaign politics. Fundamentally, he's a decent guy, though the people around him are terrible--Weinberger and Haig--though Haig himself is a mixed bag. Under Carter, there was Brzezinski, who was a very bad guy, as we subsequently found out when he revealed himself after leaving Washington.

[Q] Playboy: What about Nixon? You are on record as saying he's an out-and-out anti-Semite.

[A] Koch: Oh, I believe that, just based on conversations in the Watergate tapes where he referred to Jews in a pejorative way. His comments were filled with anti-Semitic slurs.

[Q] Playboy: And Ford?

[A] Koch: Ford was always very good on Israel, so I was shocked at what he did on AWACS. Carter, though, was never any good on Israel, but I cannot say he's anti-Semitic.

[Q] Playboy: That seems tough on the man who engineered the Camp David accords.

[A] Koch: The Jewish community felt the same way I did. I'll give you an example. Hamilton Jordan and Pat Caddell and a number of others wanted me to speak on behalf of Carter to the Jewish community because they knew he was in trouble with the Jews. I said, "No, I won't do it." One of them said, "If you think we're bad on Israel, anti-Semitic, wait'll you see the Reagan people." And I said, "No, I don't believe it. I don't believe Reagan's anti-Semitic." They mentioned Senator Jesse Helms, and I said, "No, you're all wrong. Jesse Helms may hate Jews, but he loves Israel."

[Q] Playboy: What about Jimmy's brother, Billy Carter?

[A] Koch: Oh, his brother was clearly anti-Semitic, sure. What do you want from a wacko?

[Q] Playboy: You're quoted as having said, "If Carter had listened to my advice, he might still be President." How did you mean that?

[A] Koch: Remember, I was one of the first people to be for him early on in his first campaign. But even though I said I was going to vote for him, I was not going out to support him actively unless he spoke out for two issues in 1980. One was to take more of a pro-Israel stand; the other was to support the Moynihan Medicaid Bill, which would have provided greater Federal sharing for New York City's Medicaid costs, which are breaking our back.

[Q] Playboy: And you got no response?

[A] Koch: That's correct. I asked them to do it, and they wouldn't. They started to come around in the last ten days in terms of Israel, but by then, they'd already lost the Jewish vote.

[Q] Playboy: Still, during the course of the Presidential campaign, you appeared sufficiently sympathetic to Reagan to prompt a number of editorial writers to speculate on your real commitments. Would it be fair to say that while you supported Carter, in your heart of hearts, you were secretly pulling for the Republicans?

[A] Koch: No, that's not true. It's also unfair. What people don't understand is why I was hospitable to Reagan. Granted, there was a lot of criticism by my fellow Democrats, but I don't understand why people found it so unusual. I'd have been a horse's ass to refuse a Presidential candidate's request to be filled in on the problems of New York. I think it was helpful to the city; it was another instance of plain common sense. Courtesy never really hurt anybody, so far as I know.

[Q] Playboy: Yet, in your Baltimore speech in late 1981, you called for the toppling of Reagan. Would you clarify your position?

[A] Koch: What's unclear? [Grins] I'm a Democrat, remember? I believe that we ought to have a Democratic Government, a Democratic President. What's wrong with that? It's not inconsistent.

[Q] Playboy: There have been national press stories that describe you and Reagan as the odd couple. Obviously, many people now feel that your policies are more in tune with the Republicans than with the Democrats.

[A] Koch: Look, Reagan is going to be the President for another three years. I have to work with him and I will, getting the most I can out of Washington for the city on an equitable, just basis. You cannot expect that someone whom you've been uncivil to is going to be helpful. I doubt that Governor Hugh Carey, for example, can get very much from Reagan, since it was thought that the governor was uncivil to him. But I wasn't rude, so now I have access to the White House; they respond to my telephone calls.

[Q] Playboy: They may not, now that you've called for Reagan's defeat in 1984. Take Republican congressman Jack Kemp, for example. He supported you for mayor and reportedly arranged your initial meeting with Reagan. Now he's accused you of betrayal, hasn't he?

[A] Koch: Well, they can't figure me out. [Laughs]

[Q] Playboy: You're laughing. Why?

[A] Koch: I always laugh at these things because people have such a hard time figuring me out. If they just exercised some common sense they wouldn't have any trouble at all. It's simple. I'm a Democrat. My loyalties are to the Democratic Party; everybody knows that. I've never concealed it.

[Q] Playboy: But beyond being polite to Reagan, your friendliness to the Republicans certainly helped win their endorsement in the last election. Wasn't this a way of sticking it to liberal Democrats, those in your own party who are critical of you?

[A] Koch: I told you: It was common sense, it was political---

[Q] Playboy: No, no, what we're getting at is what we've heard as your motto: "Forgive your enemies but never forget their names."

[A] Koch: That's not my quote. Mine is, "I'll never forget and I rarely forgive."

[Q] Playboy: How much of this is real? How much of it is politics?

[A] Koch: It's both.

[Q] Playboy: The part that's real would make you a very vindictive person.

[A] Koch: You call it vindictiveness, I call it justice. I believe in reward and punishment. I believe if someone kicks you, it should not be with impunity. I also have a high regard for loyalty and can't recall ever having been betrayed by someone I considered a friend.

[Q] Playboy: What about former mayor John Lindsay? When he first ran, didn't he promise to back you for City Council if you backed his mayoral race? And once he was in office, didn't he refuse to endorse you?

[A] Koch: He wasn't a friend. And don't you think he's paid for that? [Laughs] My sister said I should lay off him, that she began to feel sorry for him, so I quit and made peace with him.

[Q] Playboy: There's a kind of glee in your voice. You like the debates, the arguments, even the heckling, don't you?

[A] Koch: I've always enjoyed debates--in high school and after law school, when I supported Adlai Stevenson and his campaign committee needed street speakers. You could go to any corner in the city and speak if you had an American flag, so I started doing that during my lunch hours. And I loved those street-corner debates. I found that I'm very good at it. Any time you get a heckler, it enhances your ability to move a crowd, and I delighted in those exchanges, just loved 'em.

[Q] Playboy: What, the improvisational aspect of it? The theater?

[A] Koch: Yes, being able to turn things around and change the expected outcome. Even then, I rarely spoke from a script. I'm not a good reader. I'm much better now, but when I first read speeches, it was without emotion, without the electricity that comes from eye contact. If you're a good speaker, you're watching the crowd; you know what they're reacting to and you build on it.

[Q] Playboy: Do you agree with those who have called you an actor?

[A] Koch: Let's define what you mean by actor. For me, the term means that the performance--performance here meaning the delivery--is polished. It has a beginning, a middle and an end. In that sense, yes, I'm onstage. Some people denigrate me by saying, "Gee, he engages in too much humor." I think that's ridiculous. Humor is terrific in public life---

[Q] Playboy: Why are you defensive about it?

[A] Koch: Because of the silly deprecations of what I do, the cracks about Koch's "practicing government by one-liners." It isn't government by one-liners at all. I can demolish an opponent in one line, but that isn't the same thing as winning over the state legislature on Medicaid or pulling New York City out of bankruptcy. If I'm an actor, so be it; but don't think it hasn't been good and useful for the city.

[Q] Playboy: Let's expand this a bit; maybe it will bring us closer to what's unquestionably your special style. Wasn't Richard Nixon a consummate actor?

[A] Koch: Nixon? He's a phony, I'm not. I'm me. My performance is not dishonest. His always was. Let me tell you, when I first met Nixon in 1969, he'd just been elected and had come around to address the House of Representatives. We suspended business and everybody stood in line to shake his hand. Fishbait Miller, who was then the Doorkeeper of the House, says to Nixon as I'm stepping up, "Mr. President, this is one of our boys who took one of your seats away. Ed Koch, from the 17th in New York." I'll never forget it. Nixon put out his hand and said, "Lotta money in that district, Ed.... Lotta money." It was incredible. Here I am, the freshman congressman meeting the new President, who's grinning ear to ear, and this is all he has to say!

[Q] Playboy: And his partner, Spiro Agnew?

[A] Koch: Look, Nixon was a bad man who violated the law; he was bad for the country. Agnew, though, I can describe only as spittle. I mean, Agnew is so far beneath contempt, he isn't a fit subject for discussion.

[Q] Playboy: Well, if the electorate is as smart as you always claim, how could the country have put a couple of bad guys in the White House?

[A] Koch: We didn't know it then.

[Q] Playboy: But you believe that the electorate has common sense, that folks have an instinct for making the right decision---

[A] Koch: Well, they're not always right. I said they're mostly right.

[Q] Playboy: Do you see yourself as a kind of populist figure, the Everyman of Gracie Mansion?

[A] Koch: I don't like "populist" because it has an anti-Semitic aspect to it. But yes, I do see myself as a kind of Everyman. I don't want to get involved in critiquing my predecessors, but I don't believe any of them perceived himself as an ordinary human being.

[Q] Playboy: What do you mean?

[A] Koch: Take John Lindsay, whose slogan was something like, "He's fresh when the rest of us are tired." Or, when he ran for Congress, "Pride of the district, hope of the nation." I say to myself, "This is meshuga!" Before that, there was Robert Wagner, who was the son of one of our greatest Senators, the scion of a political family, quite well off, social and all the rest of it. He saw himself as the average joe? Come on!

I'll give you an even better example: When I first ran for Congress, in a Republican district, nobody believed I could win against the poshest, most social, wealthiest guy they could run-- Whitney North Seymour, Jr. A guy with four names! Oy, and me, I only had two! But I won with 51 percent of the vote, I got 75 percent of the vote by the time I ran for a fifth term. After I left Congress, the area reverted to Republican. The same thing is true as mayor. I ran the first time, I'm six in a field of seven; I don't have a chance. The second time, they said, "Who's running against you?" Even though there were some vile attacks from some of my opponents during that campaign.

[Q] Playboy: The most vile smear on you personally came during your first mayoral campaign, in 1977. Namely, the opposition slogan Vote for cuomo, not the homo.

[A] Koch: Oh, sure. They were hand-lettered, nonprofessional posters. I never saw anybody carrying one, but I saw some on walls in Grand Central Station and on lampposts.

[Q] Playboy: How did you respond?

[A] Koch: First, shock. Then anger that someone should stoop so low.

[Q] Playboy: Had the question of your "homosexuality" ever come up before?

[A] Koch: In every campaign I've ever been involved in. There are always rumors when candidates happen to be single, male or female, and sometimes even when they're married. So that part of it wasn't a shock to me, it's typical of New York. What was a shock was having a poster put up so openly. Vote for cuomo, Not the homo! That had never happened before.

[Q] Playboy: Were you asked to make a statement to the press?

[A] Koch: Only once, for TV. I responded by saying, "No, I'm not homosexual, but if I were, I hope I'd have the courage to say so, because I happen to believe that there's nothing wrong with people who are homosexual." Ten percent of the population is made up of homosexuals. What's cruel is that you're forced to say, "No, I'm not a homosexual." which in effect means you're putting homosexuals down, which I don't want to do.

[Q] Playboy: Is the term confirmed bachelor a characterization that can be applied to you?

[A] Koch: Well, I am a bachelor at 57. I've never thought of the term confirmed, but the probability is that---

[Q] Playboy: No, no. The analogy would be to the priest, who remains celibate to devote his life to his calling. Could being a confirmed bachelor be a way of putting all your energy into running the city?

[A] Koch: No, that's not the way I look at it at all. Whether or not I get married, I have not in any way taken a political vow that in order to do my duties, I foreclose marriage. That's ridiculous. What I have said on the subject is that marriage would be a plus, not for political purposes but because it would be nice to have the support that comes from a happy marriage. On the other hand, many marriages in the political sector are altogether unhappy. What the public gets as a result of my being single is obvious--it gets more hours of work out of me because I don't have to run home to the family.

[Q] Playboy: How do you deal with speculation that exercising this kind of power can be a sublimation for sex and marriage?

[A] Koch: I assume that's a Freudian analysis and it may very well be correct, but it's of no concern to me. I remain convinced, without knowing the actual figures, that a substantial number of people voted for me thinking I was homosexual. Equally, a substantial number voted for me thinking I'm not homosexual.

[Q] Playboy:Are you homosexual?

[A] Koch: No, I'm not.

[Q] Playboy: Have you ever had a homosexual experience?

[A] Koch: I'm not going to discuss my private life with you. But you asked me that point-blank question and I've given you my response. A substantial number of people--again, I don't know the percentages--don't give a shit. It's not a factor one way or the other. They don't weigh it, they don't ask it, they don't think about it. So it's not something that distresses me anymore

[Q] Playboy: But at any point, has any of your advisors said, "You know, Ed, it would look better if you had a lady at your side to be your hostess"? Have you had any of that pressure in the past four or five years?

[A] Koch: No. Most people in my administration are friends and think I'm pretty good at running my own life as well as running the city's. Very few of them, if any--no, none of them--believe that in these areas, they're smarter than me.

[Koch's press aide comes in and interrupts.]

[A] Aide: Can I interrupt for one second? Carol Bellamy [New York City Council President] was on Newsmakers---

[A] Koch: Did she attack me?

[A]Aide: No, she didn't attack you, but she thinks maybe it would be a good idea for the city to take over the bus and subway system from the MTA. She's not sure, but she's leaning in that direction. You want to give the press a statement?

[A] Koch: All right: "I'm always interested in her advice because she's done such a good job on the MTA to date." [Laughs] No, no, let's put this in: "If this is one of her solutions, I'll certainly look at it."

[Q] Playboy: OK, let's return to the public response to you---

[Further interruption]

[A]Aide: Can I just.... Let me read a version back to you, Ed: "I'm always interested in her advice. She's done a good job on the MTA." OK?

[A] Koch: No, no! 'Cause I know she hasn't done a good job. "I'm always interested in her advice. She's been on the MTA board for four years, and I'd be interested in knowing how it's improved in that time."

[A]Aide: Oh, Jesus.

[A] Koch: You like that? What do you want to do? [Loudly, looking at the interviewer] She's a pain in the ass!

[A]Aide: How about, "She's been on the board of the MTA for four years. If she wants to suggest that as a solution, I'll certainly be happy to study it."

[A] Koch: Good. "She's been on the board for four years, she must have some insights. And I'm always interested." Work it out. Look, she gets a free ride on a whole host of things. That's what's upsetting to me, that she hasn't been subject to the criticism she should be. She's on that goddamn board; what's she done in the four years?*

[Q] Playboy: Can we continue? Here we have the mayor of the most important city in the world, one of the best-known politicians in America---

[A] Koch: Isn't that nice to hear? [Laughs]

[Q] Playboy: This august individual who---

[A] Koch: I'm not august---

[Q] Playboy: Who uses a style and words that could well be considered undignified or unsuited to his office. The question is---

[A] Koch: By whom? Four per cent? Those who don't like me? On that issue, the numbers are real small---

[Q] Playboy: You've taken a poll on the public's response to your style?

[A] Koch: No, it's my own personal gut poll. Without any false humility, I've got a good intellect, not a superintellect. I'm no genius, just a good intellect---

[Q] Playboy: What is your I.Q.?

[A] Koch: The last time I was tested, 123.

[Q] Playboy: Not in the 160s?

[A] Koch: No. But I use people who are in the 160s. I have very good administrative skills. I'm able to use the talents of other people who are smarter than me in particular fields. If they were the mayor, though, they would destroy the city. Now, the talent that I have is reinforced by the fact that my reactions are those of ordinary people, common-sense reactions, as I've already told you. If I call Billy Carter a wacko, it's because everybody knows he's a wacko and it's probably what they've been calling him in private all along. The only person I upset with that remark was Jimmy Carter. I'm not going to get into the whole conversation between us, but he said, "Here I am, I'm under attack, and you call my brother a wacko!" The public, though, appreciated it.

[Q] Playboy: Your lack of decorum lets people identify with you, is that what you're saying?

[A] Koch: Maybe. I see it as their realizing that I'm no different from them. They think, Koch is saying exactly what I'd say if it were me in City Hall. I don't want it to appear that I'm smart and clever because I'm not so smart and clever, but the people do feel a vicarious participation in government with me. They say to themselves, "Finally, there's someone who says what has to be said, exactly the way I'd say it if I were there."

[Q] Playboy: Presumably, you're talking about New Yorkers now, a group hardly known for their decorum. What about the others? You're a national figure, and someone in the Midwest, say, might well be put off by the mayor of New York's using words like wacko and schmuck. You're confident that it's not you--or the city--who is going to be seen as wacko?

[A] Koch: Stop it! Midwesterners are just like anybody from the Lower East Side on the issue of my colorful language. What's wrong with the word schmuck anyway?

[Q] Playboy: Well, what does schmuck mean?

[A] Koch: Schmuck means penis, but it's been accepted in American parlance today as another word for jerk. Nobody sees it as an obscenity or vulgarism.

[Q] Playboy: But there are people who, nonetheless, accuse you of an intemperate style. Didn't you earlier say that the electorate wants its politicians to be better than itself?

[A] Koch: That accusation is made by people who don't like what I'm doing politically. If you've got guys like Arthur Schlesinger, who's worked for the Kennedys, or here in New York, Dick Wade, who's been aligned with Lieutenant Governor Mario Cuomo, then it's obvious, isn't it? Neither can get to City Hall, since I don't let them participate in anything I do. I wasn't for Kennedy and I defeated Cuomo in 1977, so of course they don't like my style. On the other hand, if I were pushing things they supported, I have no doubt they'd say I have a grand style.

[Q] Playboy: What kinds of things? It's no secret that you've provoked a good deal of criticism on the issues. You've been called a "secret Republican" by The Village Voice---

[A] Koch:The Village Voice is a porno rag!

[Q] Playboy: You say that because the Voice was one of your bitterest editorial opponents this past election. But even in a friendly cover story, Time magazine also used the phrase "crypto-Republican." If you don't like that term, do you agree that you fit the definition of neoconservative?

[A] Koch: I regard both those terms as a writer's conceit to sum up the idea that I'm outside the traditional Democratic mold. I'm neither neoconservative nor crypto-Republican. Reporters use clip files, and labels have a way of being repeated.

[Q] Playboy: But you won't deny that you're a fiscal conservative?

[A] Koch: No, of course not. But I don't happen to consider that to be Conservative with a capital C or Republican with a capital R. If 75 percent of the country is for the death penalty, does that make it conservative? The most vocal spokesmen for the liberal point of view may oppose capital punishment, but they don't speak for the majority of liberals. Besides, what's liberalism? It's no longer what McGovern and Kennedy stood for. I doubt it ever was. The two of them just dominated the Democratic Party.

My priorities remain the same. The difference is that I won't borrow money for education, say, from our capital budget because that's fiscally stupid. In the Sixties, people spent money they didn't have. The result was that New York City nearly went bankrupt. Now we recognize that we have to prioritize. If there's more money, you spend more on cops and education and sanitation and so forth. If you don't have the money, you don't spend it, but that doesn't mean you look at cops, education or sanitation any differently than before. Anybody who's a mayor today must be a fiscal conservative. The problems facing our cities don't exist in a vacuum. If it were possible, I'd sentence every member of the Congress to one year as mayor, if only to make them understand the damage that we did. I include myself here; at the time, I had a 100 percent ADA [Americans for Democratic Action] rating. You name it, and if it cost money, I was for it, so long as it was "good" for us. That is why I refer to myself as Mayor Culpa. We did a lot of damage, not intentionally--nobody intends detriment, right?--but there was damn little understanding.

[Q] Playboy: This common fiscal dilemma--did it hit individual cities at the same time? How much of the problem was due to local mismanagement?

[A] Koch: Take New York. We began overspending in the last two years of the Wagner third term--namely, 1963 and 1964--then Lindsay came in. By overspending, I mean we spent more than we had in terms of providing services. You cannot provide services to an extent greater than taxes or other incoming revenues, and Wagner had already begun to use the capital budget for operating expenses, which then mushroomed. Under Lindsay, they took monies meant for street repair, for the bridges, sewers and school buildings and used it to hire cops and teachers and sanitation men. Then, big surprise! In 1975, suddenly, the banks that had been buying the city's paper closed the window. We were on the edge of bankruptcy. We'd become overextended. Part of it was the national economy, inflation, the cost of energy, OPEC and so forth. But the cities themselves became overextended. Like New York, they provided services they couldn't afford. It was almost epidemic, with everybody expecting more and more every year.

[Q] Playboy: A case can be made that your fiscal conservatism really works in favor of big business, that it's a way of getting the banks and real-estate interests behind you. It's even been charged that you've sold out to them.

[A] Koch:Any mayor will be supported for re-election by the people with money in this town. If they think the race is going to be close, they'll even give money to both candidates! I'm talking about campaign contributions, not personal money. Now, it's no secret that the city's real-estate and financial institutions think I've done a good job and would like to see me remain mayor for another term. They didn't, however, support me four years ago.

[Q] Playboy: Why do they like you now?

[A] Koch: Why? Because when I came into office in 1978, there were only two major construction jobs in the entire city. Today, there are 329. That comes as a result of businesses' saying, "We want to build in New York City; they're competitive, and they match incentives available anywhere." The best illustration is the American Telephone & Telegraph Company, which was considering moving its major offices to New Jersey. It asked for an abatement for a new $200,000,000 building, since with an abatement, its taxes over a ten-year period would be reduced from $76,000,000 to $56,000,000. The board that handles such matters therefore had to make a decision, weighing the fact that if American Telephone built in the city, there would be an additional 1500 new jobs. The answer? Grant it the $20,000,000 reduction over a ten-year period, during which we will receive $56,000,000 in new taxes as well as benefit from the new job opportunities.

[Q] Playboy: That's one side of it. But what about the charge that it is the real-estate interests that are making New York unlivable? Rents go up, the middle class is forced to leave.

[A] Koch: As I said before, the middle class is coming back. That's not to deny, though, that rents are unconscionable. The fact is that they would be even worse if we didn't have rent control and rent stabilization.

[Q] Playboy: Where does it end, though? By reputation, New York now accommodates only the rich and the poor.

[A] Koch: Where does it end in the rest of the country? It's not just a local problem. There isn't new housing around today because of the high interest rates, and there's very little local government can do. We fight to keep rent stabilization and rent control. With 1,000,000 fewer people than we had in 1970, according to the census, we have 22,000 more apartments but not in all parts of the city. When you talk about the unconscionable rents, you're basically talking about the poshest areas--the Upper East Side, Upper West Side, the Village, Brooklyn Heights and Riverdale. If you want to live in other boroughs--in Queens, say--there are lovely apartments. They're not cheap, but they're nothing like how you're ripped off elsewhere.

[Q] Playboy: So the middle class is returning but only to live in Queens?

[A] Koch: Partially, yes. Because it's no longer possible for middle-class people to live outside of rent-stabilized apartments. In suburbia, you used to pay $40,000 for a home; now the average price is $70,000. What's the difference? They can live in New York City, only it means setting up new enclaves.

[Q] Playboy: But won't some people be forced to move every time their area becomes "posh"--"gentrified," if you will?

[A] Koch: You have to understand, a city is constantly in flux. What we're talking about is the regeneration of certain areas. You don't use the term gentrification because that implies you're driving people out. But if there are reasonable laws to protect the poorest of the poor and the elderly, then there's nothing wrong with this. The mayor's not a miracle man; he can only work with what he has. At this moment, my priority is to keep the city financially stable.

[Q] Playboy: Of course, but you're on record as opposing low-cost housing projects for the poor as well.

[A] Koch: It's not that simple, and I've also been vindicated. You're obviously referring to the episode of the low-income project in Forest Hills, Queens. Fine. In 1971, when I was on the Congressional Banking and Currency Committee, which had jurisdiction over housing dollars, I went out there and said to myself, "This is crazy. You're gonna build three 24-story buildings for some 4500 tenants on welfare in a residential area!" Not to mention that it's in a two-fare subway zone, so it will be hard to go and look for work. So I spoke out and said, "No, I'm opposed to this."

When I got back to the office, I'm inundated by telephone calls from friends who were mad as hell. I'm called by Stanley Geller, one of my oldest supporters who's been involved in all my campaigns. He's a good lawyer, a super lawyer, who defended me when Carmine DeSapio tried to get me off the ballot in 1963, and he calls and says. "Ed, I just heard you say on the radio that you're against low-income housing." "I didn't say that," I reply. "I said I'm against the Forest Hills low-income housing project." He said, "You can't be against any low-income housing project." I said, "Stanley, if that project goes up, it will destroy the neighborhood. The people there will move out." "I don't care if they move out," he said, "the Jews in Forest Hills have to pay their dues." So I replied, "Stanley, you're an old friend, you're a very rich man, and you've helped me throughout the years. I'm very appreciative of your support. And you have this wonderful brownstone on Twelfth Street; I really wish I owned one like that. And you also have this marvelous home in the Hamptons, this near-Olympic-size pool, and you've been kind and invited me there, and I wish I owned that, too. And the day your kids were born, Stanley, you registered them in private schools. You're telling me that the Jews in Forest Hills have to pay their dues? I'm telling you they are willing to pay their dues, only they're not willing to pay yours!" And my good friend Stanley Geller hung up on me. We didn't speak for a year.

[Q] Playboy: You're talking about a double standard here? You see yourself as more consistent, more realistic than others?

[A] Koch: Quite correct. The one thing that Mario Procaccino said in the course of his whole mayoral campaign in 1969-- he's sort of a remnant of the old machine, been around for years--was that the Upper East Side is full of "limousine liberals." Everybody loves anything that uplifts the poor, only they won't make the sacrifices in their own neighborhood. Alcoholic treatment, drug-treatment centers, methadone, shopping-bag ladies, all the things you need a physical structure for, you put it on yenem's block, as my mother would've said--namely, the other guy's, not your own. Now, everybody today is for my position on Forest Hills and on low-income housing in general. It's not necessary to put low-income housing projects in middle-class neighborhoods when we can rehabilitate all the many existing abandoned buildings at maybe 60 percent of the cost of new housing. It's especially sensible when the city actually owns buildings in so many of these desolated communities. It wasn't a popular approach back then, but it's very popular today, and this is what we've been doing.

[Q] Playboy: Popular even among black people? Your argument could be used by someone who wanted to keep blacks in the ghetto. Isn't this why you've been charged with insensitivity to minorities, not only by your liberal critics, such as Arthur Schlesinger, but by the minority communities as well?

[A] Koch: It just isn't true, but we'll come to that in a moment. But go ask the black community which they prefer-- our building three times the number of apartments in Brownsville or the South Bronx or putting one family on Sutton Place? In the last year of the Beame administration, only 1700 apartments were rehabilitated in all of New York. We've rehabilitated 17,000, an improvement of ten to one. Who occupies those apartments? Overwhelmingly, blacks and Hispanics, because under Federal regulations, they have to be rented to people on the lowest end of the economic spectrum. The same overwhelming numbers of blacks and Hispanics who supported my re-election, by the way.

[Q] Playboy: So you feel you've been given a bum rap on the racial question? It's as simple as that?

[A] Koch: No, it's not as simple as that. But the black and Hispanic communities, not the middle class, have been the ones given favored treatment by my administration, and quite correctly so. My defense, if it requires a defense, is that you should put the money where the need is, so 56 percent of our total operating budget over the past four years has gone to serve the 26 percent of the city's population that falls below the poverty line. How has their actual day-to-day lot been improved? The single most important thing, I think, is education. Kids are reading above norms for the first time. There's also been greater black representation in government. I've been accused of not doing enough, but compared with previous administrations, I think I've been terrific.

[Q] Playboy: Yet the charge of insensitivity to minorities persists.

[A] Koch: Of course it persists! But it isn't borne out by the recent election. If I'd been guilty of this charge of discrimination, wouldn't it have been reflected in the vote? It wasn't. I'm more strongly supported in the black and Hispanic communities than either the media or, worse still, some of the black leadership will acknowledge. I got 60 percent of the black vote and there have been figures as high as 70 percent for the Hispanics.

[Q] Playboy: But doesn't this overlook---

[A] Koch: It's a lot of baloney. I mean, people just repeat this crap.

[Q] Playboy: The question is---

[A] Koch: I'm gonna tell you! I know what your question is: What percentage of blacks voted? What percentage of whites? I know exactly what the question is; I'm not going through this for the first time. My recollection is that in the primaries, more blacks voted, percentagewise, than whites! I think it was like 25 percent of the whites who voted in the primary and probably well over 30 percent of the blacks. In the general election, there was about a 47 percent turnout, and I think the black vote was about 42 percent.

[Q] Playboy: We're trying to get you to talk less about statistics and more about a message some people feel you send out. You may mean it in the most sincere way when you say. "Hey, you folks in white, Jewish, middle-class Queens, I'm for you," but elsewhere, in the ghetto, there are reverberations. Given generations of racial tension, there's the feeling that Koch has taken sides.

[A] Koch: Look, I value the middle-class ethic because I am middle class--poor to begin with, yes, but now middle class--but does my praise of middle-class values therefore mean I'm doing something that violates good racial relations? No, because I believe that the black middle class, of which we have a large number, sweeps its streets cleaner than most groups in town. It also prizes its gardens. And it also happens to agree with what I'm saying, and I believe that if you went out and talked to poor people, when you got through all the rhetoric, what you'd find is that they want to be middle class, too. So I'm not allowed to say these things? Why not, tell me?

[Q] Playboy: Let's take this one step at a time. We assume you've called for Reagan's defeat in 1984 because you think his economic program is exacerbating the already precarious state of the cities.

[A] Koch: Yes. I hold President Reagan himself responsible. I happen to like him as a human being, but his expenditure reductions are too great and haven't been distributed equitably. Ditto for his reductions in taxes. Expenditures have to be reduced, but I don't believe that we have to have a balanced budget in 1984. Inflation has been terrible. Our budget is 20 percent Federally funded, 20 percent state, 60 percent local. When Federal funds go down, there's less money for our essential services. We were supposed to have a two-billion-dollar capital budget last year; we only had about a 1.3 billion, and the major failure was hundreds of millions of dollars from the Federal Government. That hurts.

[Q] Playboy: Would the Carter Administration---

[A] Koch: Have been any better? I suspect it would have been better in terms of money, yes. The Reagan people are imposing a policy, namely, supply-side economics, which is based on a false premise. The premise is that if you give tax breaks to the poor or the middle class, they won't spend the money, they won't invest it and therefore the economy doesn't benefit. You give tax breaks to the very wealthy and to big business and supposedly, they will invest it, put it back in the economy. I'm opposed to that because I don't think that's actually been happening. Our economy hasn't been stimulated with the net increase of jobs predicted as a result of these tax reductions. Why? That, I'm not able to say. I just know that in the past, nobody believed supply-side economics would work, and now that it's being imposed, it ain't working! The rich get richer, and they get richer by not spending. It's the poor and those depending on social programs who suffer.

[Q] Playboy: Ironically, though, there's almost a parallel here to your own administration. If you emphasize the middle class, then the poor may be losing out under Koch as well as under Reagan. That's what your critics have charged; indeed, it's at the center of the impression that you've become a crypto-Republican.

[A] Koch: And you would like me to say that somehow or other, I'm depriving the poor to give to the middle class. I haven't done that. Just the other way around---

[Q] Playboy: Not depriving. But to keep the subject more philosophical than statistical, it could be argued that your shift to the Right represents a kind of a narrowing of the spirit---

[A] Koch: There is a shift, yes.

[Q] Playboy: Toward vindictiveness.

[A] Koch: Not at all!

[Q] Playboy: When you publicly embrace the ethic of "never forget, never forgive," it's a wholly different approach from the liberal tradition of at least trying to appeal to the best in people.

[A] Koch: That can best be described with the German word Quack, which means bullshit, but in a nice way. Now, it happens that I rarely do forgive; it's a political principle that I think is universal. I believe in reward and punishment as it relates to people who impact upon me. It doesn't relate to the constituency. I do whatever is required, and more, to assist the poor in this town, because I happen to believe in God and I believe in reward and punishment, in heaven, earth and hell, and I'm going to do whatever I can before I meet my Maker. Now, how do I go about it? I take the dollars and put them where the need is. I don't know how you can allocate more than 56 percent of the budget for 26 percent of the people and come out with a feeling that you've done too little. That figure, by the way, doesn't include the universal services of mass transit, cops and firemen, which is done on a per capita basis. It's targeted monies I'm talking about.

Okay. At the same time, there has been a shift; I don't want to deny that. Under Lindsay and Beame, the thrust of city policy was to make this a town where business and economy were of less importance than the welfare syndrome. New York was Welfare City, and the programs were thrown wide open. A welfare applicant would come in and claim he was entitled to benefits and he just got them! No investigation, nothing. I don't believe in that. I believe we should provide for people, but I don't believe it's my job to go out and encourage everyone who's entitled to welfare to apply, not at all. There are lots of people--and I give them credit--who say, "I'm eligible, but I won't take it. I want to work." I'm not saying that you shouldn't take welfare if you're entitled to it, but I want to give credit to those who feel that working or doing it on their own is a much more positive way of dealing with life. Other mayors would denigrate that, saying, "What are you doing? That's not compassionate." I think it's totally compassionate.

[Q] Playboy: But come back to the analogy: If Reagan stands for a trickle-down theory nationally, then you, in a similar vein, stand up for the middle class and say, "Let me take care of the middle class and that alone will make the city more prosperous"--

[A] Koch: No, damn it! I've said to you now three times that you cannot point to dollars that we've been giving to the middle class. You're claiming that some-how or other, we take care of the middle class by giving them things that will then trickle down, but I haven't said that. I've said that I want the middle class to know--and not from a dollar point of view, because I don't have the dollars to give them--that philosophically, I believe in their values. I want them to know that they have a friend in City Hall; that we don't take them for granted; that when people mocked them, as they did in the Sixties, they were wrongly maligned! The middle class was right. Honesty, industriousness, all of it, the whole thing! If people call me insensitive to minorities--that's the word, "insensitive," just as you said earlier--then I demand a bill of particulars. Show me from a substantive point of view where I've failed. They can't.

[Q] Playboy: You've consistently said you'll deal with "racial problems" in terms not of race but of poverty---

[A] Koch: Poverty, yes.

[Q] Playboy: How do you reasonably make the distinction between race and poverty? Being black in this society obviously means being at an economic disadvantage, and in New York, 80 percent of the poor are black or Hispanic.

[A] Koch: Easy. But for starters, you have to go outside New York. Nationwide, poverty is 65 percent white, not black. Any country-wide program related to poverty will therefore benefit mainly whites. In the city of New York, 80 percent or better of the beneficiaries will be black or Hispanic. If you deal with the problem in racial terms, you get resistance from the 65 percent of the people excluded, who, on the basis of poverty, need help most. If that 65 percent is so angry that it brings about the end of the program, which is exactly what's happening, then the 80 percent who benefit in the city of New York, who happen to be black and Hispanic, are the losers, too. The long and the short of it is, by doing it my way, you achieve the same goal, while also keeping the programs going, whereas if you limit criteria to color, you ultimately endanger the existence of the programs themselves. It's also reverse racism.

Similarly, I back affirmative action but I oppose quotas. I take the position that you can accomplish the goal of assisting minorities by having programs that have quotas related to poverty. For example, we have jobs set aside in construction for those who fit the definition of a CETA worker. They will be over-whelmingly, but not necessarily, blacks and Hispanics.

[Q] Playboy: So, once and for all, if you've been as evenhanded toward minorities as you claim, why does the perception that you're racially insensitive persist?

[A] Koch: I think it's intentional, frankly.

[Q] Playboy: You think there's a conspiracy to get Ed Koch?

[A] Koch: No, not a conspiracy. I don't believe in conspiracy theories; I really believe that Oswald killed Kennedy. What I'm saying is that I believe there are opinionmakers and that the opinion-makers are largely on the Left. I'm not going to give you percentages, but as it relates to the Democratic Party or the media---

[Q] Playboy: A few names?

[A] Koch: I'm not going to get into it. If I were to give you names, there'd be letters: "Why did you mention this one---"

[Q] Playboy: Isn't that a little like redbaiting? You make a substantial accusation but refuse to name those you're pointing the finger at. Don't you think you have a responsibility here?

[A] Koch: Maybe I do, but I'm not going to. I don't want to sound like I'm being crucified, 'cause I'm not. There's no pain involved. I know what I'm doing is right and helpful to the Party, and I believe in it. OK? But I know that those people who are the gurus of the Democratic Party, plus the opinionmakers, can't tolerate what I'm doing because I'm upsetting their hold on things. They honestly believe it's immoral to be in favor of the death penalty, they believe that racial quotas are really required and also that busing is the answer to integration. I don't! And I'm challenging them! And don't think I have a messianic complex either, because assuredly I don't.

[Q] Playboy: But you won't name these left-wingers? It does sound a little like redbaiting.

[A] Koch: Why do you confuse positions in support of the death penalty with redbaiting? What's that got to do with Communism?

[Q] Playboy: No, the analogy is that you claim there are those people out there intentionally maligning you, yet you refuse to identify them. You say they're mostly on the liberal Left, connected with the Democratic Party. There are all sorts of innuendoes here.

[A] Koch: But I believe that. I'm not going to get into a confrontation---

[Q] Playboy: At least characterize these people. Give us a hint.

[A] Koch: I'll give you one illustration--Kenneth Clark [City University of New York psychology professor]. OK? Ken Clark, very brilliant man, an opinion-maker. Ten years ago, he was for school decentralization. A lot of people don't think decentralization works, a lot do, but you can't get Albany to do an investigation because those in favor of it are absolutely petrified that an examination will show that it doesn't work. Therefore, we keep it. Only Clark, the guru on the subject, now changes his mind and says he's opposed to it. Another "expert"--James Coleman [University of Chicago sociologist]. The architect of busing. We all rushed into busing as the answer, only not long ago, Coleman announced he doesn't think it works anymore. What I'm saying is that we get pushed like a pendulum from one side to the other by a few "experts," when most of the time, the public knows far better.

[Q] Playboy: Wait. Did the public "know better" about your closing Sydenham Hospital in Harlem? That was one of the major controversies several years ago, and it still remains a subject of debate. Why did it cause such an uproar--an uproar by no means limited to the black community?

[A] Koch: At the time I closed Sydenham, I was advised not to get involved, just to keep the place open, even though the editorial boards of the city's three newspapers supported me. Why did I do it? Because for 30 years, every administration had been told to close Sydenham. It was providing poor medical care and could not be physically upgraded without large expenditure, and people simply weren't going there for treatment. A cop, even if he were shot in the lobby of that place, would demand to be taken elsewhere because Sydenham was off limits to anybody with a major wound. The emergency room couldn't even be classified under Federal standards. The position I took was based on ethics, what I saw as right and wrong. On the other hand, the most craven thing the governor ever did was when all the blacks ran up to Albany and asked him to make me keep it open. He said, "Well, we're gonna look into this," that plus all sorts of other bullshit. It was an outrage what he did to mislead them, just to get their support. He couldn't make us keep the place open if he wanted to, and, in fact, he himself was for closing it.

[Q] Playboy: You don't sound very fond of New York state governor Carey. Sydenham aside, how do you feel about his nationally publicized bizarre behavior after marrying Evangeline Gouletas?

[A] Koch: I'm not a psychiatrist and I'm not going to try to get into his skull. I do not intend to engage in a layman's analysis of his marital life. I don't perceive him as emotionally unstable, if that's what you're trying to convey. Each of us obviously has his own way of doing things. I'm not going to pass judgment on his having dyed his hair, for example. That's a personal matter. Myself, I wouldn't consider wearing a toupee, even though I'm balding.

[Q] Playboy: Has it been suggested?

[A] Koch: Yes, of course. [Laughs] Not by my advisors, though. But even if I were to get a toupee, so what? There'd always be somebody who'd criticize it.

[Q] Playboy: Come on, you don't get criticized as much as most politicians. You get along great with the press, don't you?

[A] Koch: I happen to have very good relationships with the editors of the three major papers, correct. I see them regularly, and three or tour times a year, I will ask for an editorial luncheon.

[Q] Playboy: Reportedly, you speak quite often with Rupert Murdoch, the conservative press baron who recently bought The New York Post and was an ardent supporter of Reagan.

[A] Koch: I know how that rumor got started, and it's nonsense. The journalist who started it is a schmuck. As for Murdoch himself, I've found The New York Post's editorial positions to be extraordinarily supportive of what's good for the city or, if you will, of my vision of the city.

[Q] Playboy: Even though the Post is seen by its detractors as the most sensational and vulgar tabloid in the city?

[A] Koch: What? Its headlines? "Killer bees coming to New York City"? I believe bees are coming, ultimately. They're working their way up an inch at a time from the Yucatán. But why should people call The New York Post vulgar unless they want to call 1,000,000 readers vulgar? The real rag that Murdoch owns is The Village Voice.

[Q] Playboy: Ah, yes, your favorite. How do you feel about New York's major black newspaper, The Amsterdam News?

[A] Koch: An anti-Semitic rag. They constantly refer to [Manhattan borough president] Andy Stein as "Finkel"-- not Finkelstein but Finkel. What are they trying to convey? Obviously, that he's a Jew. He changed his name from Finkelstein to Stein--he didn't change it from Stein to Brown--so there's no question it's a slur. If you look at The Amsterdam News, you'll find that not only are they anti-Semitic, they've become radical as well. They've come out against every black and Hispanic council member.

[Q] Playboy: Thus their attacks on you can't be construed as reflecting the views of the black community?

[A] Koch: Oh, God, you're starting this again? No, they can't. How can The Amsterdam News represent the black community if the black community doesn't even read it? Their circulation has fallen to nothing.

[Q] Playboy: You are on record speaking of black anti-Semitism in general, not just at that newspaper. We quote from some tapes you made for an oral-history project, but which were recently published in a profile of you by journalist Ken Auletta: "I find the black community very anti-Semitic. I don't care what the American Jewish Congress or B'nai B'rith will issue by way of polls showing that the black community is not.... My experience with blacks is that they're basically anti-Semitic. Now, I want to be fair about it. I think whites are basically antiblack.... But the difference is: It is recognized as morally reprehensible...."

[A] Koch: You got the quote a little screwed up.

[Q] Playboy: It appeared verbatim in The New Yorker.

[A] Koch: It's not exactly that way. When I said, "Let's be fair about it, whites are ..." I meant that the same kind of discriminatory practices exist on both sides. The quote was from a tape made in 1974 or 1975. It was unedited, and it didn't express my complete thought. Had I been given the opportunity, I would have expanded upon it.

[Q] Playboy: Fine. Why not take the opportunity now?

[A] Koch: There are two thoughts there that need clarification. One is, it wasn't a symmetrical statement. I said that blacks are basically anti-Semitic. If I were to define it, I was talking principally about black leaders, those I know. Obviously, I don't know the whole black community. Substantively, I still believe that there are lots of blacks in leadership positions who are anti-Semitic. I don't withdraw that comment at all.

But I also want it understood why I think the leaders are anti-Semitic. They're frustrated with their own unsuccessful efforts to alleviate the conditions of poverty and black suffering. It's nice to have a scapegoat. And traditionally, Jews have always been the scapegoats of Western society. It may also be simple envy. They say, "Well, the Jews came up through the system; why is it that they've been able to escape poverty in such large numbers?"

[Q] Playboy: Do you think, then, that Jews ought to feel a special obligation toward blacks? That because of their own experience of oppression, they ought to be better, more sacrificing, than gentiles?

[A] Koch: I have no guilt complex. My father didn't own slaves. He came here from Poland when he was 15, so I am not guilty of that, nor do I believe I have to pay reparations for it. I spent time in 1964 defending blacks against the K.K.K. in Mississippi. I may still have an obligation today, yes, but no more than I do to the Chinese or to any other group being discriminated against.

[Q] Playboy: That's what's intriguing about you--all that time spent on liberal causes during the Sixties, a period you now denounce as excessive. Besides civil rights, you also opposed the Vietnam war, didn't you?

[A] Koch: Yes, by voting against military-appropriation bills in Congress. And by demonstrating. I marched, both in Washington and here in the city. But it wasn't as simple as it may seem. On one occasion, there was a Communist-operated anti-Vietnam war creation, the Fifth Avenue Parade Committee---

[Q] Playboy: "Communist"?

[A] Koch: I don't want to say they were all Communists; I don't want this to sound like Koch's fear of the Communists. [Laughs] But in my judgment, the major movement at that time was Communist-dominated---

[Q] Playboy: You're talking about leadership? Funding from Moscow?

[A] Koch: No, I'm not talking about spies and I have no idea how they were funded. I'm talking about ideological alliances with Moscow, about people who perceived North Vietnam as an idealistic country and South Vietnam as fascist. Myself, I believed that North and South Vietnam were both dictatorships, one by the Left, the other by the Right, and that they deserved each other. At the time, though, there were lots of people who idealized North Vietnam.

[Q] Playboy: Jane Fonda, for example?

[A] Koch: I don't want to call Jane Fonda a Communist because I don't know that she is. But she was certainly far Left and idealized North Vietnam. Cora Weiss, too. With their recordings from Hanoi--despicable! My feelings came to a head at a meeting at Hunter College. Bella Abzug had called in all of the 17 members of the New York City Congressional delegation. There was a huge crowd, a lot of red flags and Hanoi partisans, and she asked us to lend our names to sponsor this Fifth Avenue Parade Committee. Almost everybody said, yes, they were going to sign up [laughs], but I refused. They began to yell and scream at me. I said, "Listen, I will walk with Communists and Black Panthers, but I will never let them lead me." Then you know what happened? McCarthyism, that's what happened. The crowd began yelling, screaming that I was another Joe McCarthy.

[Q] Playboy: Where was Abzug in relation to all of this?

[A] Koch: I don't remember precisely what she said when I refused, but she certainly concurred with the majority.

[Q] Playboy: Is that when you called her "a savage"?

[A] Koch: I don't remember saying that, but I wouldn't retract it if I did. It's not a word I'd normally apply to her, but it's OK.

[Q] Playboy: How would you describe her today?

[A] Koch: Bigmouth. [Laughs] I found her to be very pushy, counterproductive in a whole list of areas. I hold her responsible for E.R.A.'s defeat in New York state. People forget that the Equal Rights Amendment lost in New York. I was for E.R.A.--I still am--but Bella was perceived as the E.R.A. spokes-woman and was so strident and aggressive that her attitudes frightened people.

[Q] Playboy: A further irony that's tied into your feelings about the excesses and license of the Sixties is the often-repeated comment that many of the radicals came from spoiled, upper-middle-class families.

[A] Koch: Sure, I know some of them; the kids went to the best schools and ultimately decided that what they wanted to do was destroy society. I don't know what happened to the kids' brains, whether it's a screw loose or a question of education. In a way, it's like what my mother used to tell my brother: "You should have a kid like you. God will punish you!" [Laughs] What can I say? As children, they heard all about the injustices and the need for revolution, how wonderful the Soviet Union is, how U. S. society is fascist, and--unknowingly in many cases, I'm sure--the children become so enraged that they did things that today horrify their parents.

[Q] Playboy: What's come across surprisingly strongly in this interview is an abiding suspicion of the Soviets and of Communism. Just how deep does this run? Are the Russians out to bury us, as the saying goes?

[A] Koch: Ultimately, yes, if by bury you mean take over. I think their goal is to make the Soviet Union the center around which all other countries orbit as satellites, including the United States and the countries of Western Europe. There are people in the United States who could be called their counterparts, of course, but fortunately, they don't represent the vast majority of the leadership or of the voting public.

[Q] Playboy: You don't see elements of this analogous attitude--call it a Cold War mentality--in the present Republican push for a big defense budget?

[A] Koch: I've always believed we should be ahead of the Soviet Union in our ability to defend ourselves. I was one of the few "liberals" in Congress who voted for defense-spending bills when others from New York City did not. That distinguished me. But I'm disturbed by Reagan's defense budget as well. The Administration's current analysis assumes that only the social programs are filled with fraud and waste, while military spending has been honest and necessary. I'm not so sure about that. The same acid test has to be applied to both, because both have been filled with sloth, waste and inefficiency.

[Q] Playboy: It's been said that the mayor of New York City has to have a fully formulated foreign policy. Do you ever envy any of your fellow mayors who don't have to articulate such positions?

[A] Koch: No, I enjoy it, frankly. New York is special that way. We have more Puerto Ricans than in San Juan, more blacks than in Nairobi, more Italians than in Naples and, as we said before, more Jews than in Tel Aviv.... Shall we stop for lunch?

[Over lunch, at Koch's suggestion, a network TV show featuring an extremely friendly interview with Koch was turned on.]

[Q] Playboy: We're suspending one interview to watch another. Why are we watching it now? Why not tape it and replay the program for yourself later?

[A] Koch: First of all, I won't get home till late. And second, we're having lunch.

[The TV commentator makes some favorable remarks about Koch's policies.]

This is tremendous! [Referring to the show]

[Q] Playboy:[As the program ends] OK? We're back on. Would you test the mike?

[A] Koch: This is Ed Koch with his lox and bagels!

[Q] Playboy: Fine. It was unusual, watching you watch yourself on television. The frequent comment that Ed Koch is a little narcissistic---

[A] Koch: Sure I am, a little bit. Not over much. I was thinking about that when we put the set on--I was sure you were thinking, Gee, he wanted to watch himself while we were here. The answer to that is, it's not true. Yesterday, when we taped over lunch, you ate; I didn't. I decided that wasn't going to happen again. Second, time is a very precious commodity to me and I wanted to see that show. But, yes, I do watch interviews of myself. I think it's helpful to learn how I'm coming across, especially since you can rarely fool the tube. What you see is generally more accurate than when you're with the person face to face.

[Q] Playboy: We've talked to some people active in New York politics, and one of the more common theories of Ed Koch is that the mayoralty has transformed him from a shy, wallflowerish politician---

[A] Koch: Shy, absolutely. A totally retiring personality! [Laughs]

[Q] Playboy: With all the media attention, isn't there a part of you that says, "Me? How did I do it, how did I get here?"

[A] Koch: I am a retiring person. But at the same time, I'm able to do quite well in public, and this isn't phony. What you see is what you get.

[Q] Playboy: One of your oldest political associates claims that if power corrupts, your only corruption is that as mayor, you've become vastly animated as a personality. Really, aren't you getting off on the show business of all of this?

[A] Koch: Oh, sure, I enjoy the attention. Sometimes what I do will be faulted, but I know I present New York City's case in the best light and, yes, I enjoy it. As for my personality's changing, that's inaccurate. I'm no different from when I was a Congressman, just more proficient.

[Q] Playboy: The same chutzpah? You're claiming you were always "Eddie the Lip," as one of the New York dailies recently put it?

[A] Koch: Yes, sir. The difference is that before, you weren't listening. It's all in the eye of the beholder.

[Q] Playboy: Do you think you've changed the way you look?

[A] Koch: No, I dress the same way, although it's strange that people think I dress better. I buy the same Brooks Brothers suits--on sale--as I did in 1952.

[Q] Playboy: That far back? Why Brooks Brothers?

[A] Koch: Oh, it was part of my feeling that three-button suits were the thing to wear. [Laughs] I'm a very conservative person in my likes and dislikes. I don't go to fancy restaurants, either.

[Q] Playboy: No? Supposedly, your great passion in life, aside from politics, is food.

[A] Koch: Vastly overstated.

[Q] Playboy: We've heard otherwise. What is this, your fourth cook this year? How is he working out?

[A] Koch: Fine. Altogether, there were five cooks in four years. [Arches his eyebrows] Doesn't everybody have five cooks in four years?

[Q] Playboy: Don't you go out to New York's great restaurants? Lutèce, for instance?

[A] Koch: Are you kidding? Once, I went to Lutèce and I was very upset. I almost always pay for my own meals, but that time I was invited. I had a wonderful-sounding dish and it turned out to be Swedish meatballs. I said to myself, "Jesus Christ, I come to Lutèce, I end up with Swedish meatballs?" It's a very good restaurant, but it's too expensive for me. I can give you six restaurants where for $15 or less, you can get what I consider an excellent meal.

[Q] Playboy: In keeping with the same motif--you as everyman--you've also ridden the subway, so you know what the problems are, right?

[A] Koch: Of course, any number of times.

[Q] Playboy: And your mission is to present New York City's case in the best light. Now, how can you possibly find a positive way of talking about the subway when it's so symbolic of the city's problems--its dirt, inefficiency and crime? Be creative, convince us it really isn't the nightmare everyone thinks it is.

[A] Koch: You tell me whether or not we have a problem. On that TV show we just watched, I gave the figure of 350 felonies a week committed on the subway system, a subway system that carries 3,500,000 people daily. It's fractional, but people are afraid, granted. So you have to deal with that and put on more cops--ten percent of our total police force is assigned to the subway system, while only two percent of the city's crimes are committed there.

[Q] Playboy: That's going to make the subway better?

[A] Koch: Look, it's improving on a week-to-week basis now, but the truly large difference will occur when the new subway cars come on the line. The major complaint about the subway is the long delays due to mechanical breakdowns. Better maintenance is one answer--getting the Municipal Transit Authority people to work more than the three or four hours a day they do in some shops now. [Laughs] So either we'll get them to work the full day--which is only six and three-quarters hours to begin with-- or we'll contract out our maintenance. Up to now, I've been getting plenty of courtesy but little action. That's changing because of the pressures I've been applying, although lately, it's been suggested that the city take over the subway rather than let the system continue to be run by the MTA.

[Q] Playboy: Didn't that notion come from Carol Bellamy?

[A] Koch: That was her idea, yes. She sits on the MTA board, and she's both good and bad. But she has to bear some of the blame, since she begged the governor to appoint her to it and she voted for the MTA contract, which has feather-bedding practices, while my appointees voted against it. Basically, she's suggesting that I take over the subway system because she'd like to deflect responsibility from herself, which is perfectly reasonable. I've seen the syndrome before.

[Q] Playboy: And graffiti? Wasn't it fashionable some time back to talk about subway graffiti as an indigenous art form?

[A] Koch: Bullshit. Bullshit twice! Part of the problem started in 1966 with the New York Times piece, but they now recognize how much they were in error. One of the things I'm proudest of, though, was getting the transit authority to put up a fence around one of the subway yards to do something about graffiti. Initially, I urged the MTA to build a fence around the subway yard and put a dog in the yard to keep these vandals out. The response was, "No, the dog would step on the third rail." I said, "That's ridiculous; dogs don't step on the third rail. Why is it that vandals don't step on the third rail? But if you're so upset about a dog's stepping on the third rail, then build two fences and have the dog run between them." The head of the MTA replied, "But somebody might fall between the two fences and the dog might bite them." "I thought that's what dogs were for," I said, "but if you're worried, why not put a wolf in?" Because, I explained, there is no recorded incident of a wolf's ever having attacked a human being, except if the wolf was rabid. Wolves have had a bad rep through history, see. Then a New York Times reporter told me I was only partially right. He'd gone to the zoological library--something that the city of New York undoubtedly pays for--and found that while no wild wolf has ever bitten a human unless it was rabid, there are cases of domesticated wolves' having attacked people. So right away, I said that of course I'd meant wild wolves--you put a wild wolf between those two fences, and if the wolf becomes tame, you replace him. Now, I told that ridiculous story all around town in order to shame the MTA into getting something done. They were livid. It so happens that the head of the MTA has a lot of friends in high places, on editorial boards and the like, and naturally, it got back to him. It was the only way I could get them to do anything. So now they've built fences around the yard and put in a dog, and it works.

[Q] Playboy: But the subways are still covered with graffiti.

[A] Koch: They've done it with only one yard out of the 21 yards in the city! At the end of each month, they used to pick up 3000 empty spray cans out there. After they put up the fence, there were only five! That's gotta tell you something.

[Q] Playboy: What? That you can bring some pressure publicly? Using the press or anything else that comes to hand?

[A] Koch: Yeah, like ridicule. The wolf story. But what I really want is the power to hire and fire the president of the transit authority, John Simpson. Not that I would fire him right off, but it would change the relationship so that he would relate to me as a commissioner, not as an independent authority.

[Q] Playboy: Is it possible that you're not talking about this at a great enough remove? That you really don't see what we're driving at? For most people who don't live in New York, the whole transit problem is a staple for Johnny Carson jokes, jokes that hit home, but only your home, not Atlanta or any other city. Why? Why is New York's transit system such a shambles of inefficiency?

[A] Koch: How would these people like to live in Boston, where the subway closed down from lack of funding? We've never closed our subway. But people publicize our problems more because New York is the place of major interest. I'm not saying we don't have problems; only that compared with the delivery of services elsewhere, we don't do too badly.

[Q] Playboy: The other form of urban blight we touched on earlier was crime. What changes do you think we need to make a dent in that problem?

[A] Koch: What we need is to make the protection of society itself more paramount in those areas where protection has traditionally been for the defendant.

[Q] Playboy: Like what, specifically?

[A] Koch: Restoring the death penalty, as I've said. I've always been in favor of it because I think it works as a deterrent. Even if it did not, however, society should express its moral outrage at horrendous crimes. Also, with crimes of violence, we should impose mandatory sentences. The best illustration is New York's new gun-control law. Prior to this, very few people who were apprehended and convicted for illegal possession of guns ever went to jail. As a result of the campaign that I initiated and that had enormous support in the newspapers, more than 70 percent of the people convicted of gun violations now go to jail for a mandatory minimum sentence of one year.

[Q] Playboy: Mandatory is mandatory, right? Why do 30 percent get off? There are still 2,000,000 illegal handguns in New York.

[A] Koch: Notwithstanding my opposition, the law has a loophole. If a judge finds extenuating circumstances, he or she can, at his or her discretion, dismiss the charge or, in the interest of justice, reduce the sentence.

[Q] Playboy: Capital punishment, mandatory sentencing, what else?

[A] Koch: I want to release the names of juvenile or adolescent felons. The law prohibits it now, but I think society should have a sense of public disdain. People should have to live with their criminal past. Records of juvenile offenders that are sealed should be made available to the courts so if someone's on trial as an adult, his earlier record should bear upon sentencing.

Look, crime is getting worse in New York City as well as in the rest of the country, and unless we deal with it far more strictly, the trend is going to continue--no question. The solutions are age-old: speedy trials, pretrial detention, more cops and stricter sentencing. There's also another route, and I hope this won't be characterized as "Koch's concentration camps": There's no reason to build massive prison complexes costing $100,000 per cell. You can set up compounds in our state forests or national parks, prisons with tents and barbed wire and dogs, if necessary. Whatever it takes---

[Q] Playboy: Wolves?

[A] Koch: Wolves, sure. Not to torture people but to separate them from society to keep them from committing more crimes. I'm all for that; I'm for it on a large scale. The greatest impact on a person who snatches a necklace or who writes graffiti on a subway car or on public buildings is to be put away and be put away abruptly, even if the sentence itself is minor or brief.

[Q] Playboy: Speaking of criminals who don't get put away, do you find any irony in the fact that Little Italy, New York's traditional Mafia neighborhood---

[A] Koch: Is safe? [Laughs]

[Q] Playboy: Yes.

[A] Koch: I don't think it has so much to do with the Mafia as with the fact that people will run out into the street to help if there's trouble. The same thing can be found in the Hasidic areas, like Williamsburg and Borough Park. It's like they're small-town; everyone knows their neighbors.

[Q] Playboy: And the Mafia in New York City?

[A] Koch: Yes, Virginia, there is a Mafia. And it is engaged, so I understand, in drugs, gambling, prostitution, extortion as it relates to linens and also, I guess, pickles. [Laughs]

[Q] Playboy: You mentioned prostitution. You're also famous for "the john hour": airing on local radio the names of those arrested for soliciting prostitutes. Why not just make prostitution legal and let cops do more important work elsewhere?

[A] Koch: I don't think the public wants a city like Amsterdam, where you have women with whips in shopwindows. [Laughs] Moreover, it doesn't work. They tried it in France and dropped it. In Boston, the so-called Combat Zone, it didn't work, either. It's the same response I have to legalizing heroin. The public doesn't want it, I don't want it.

[Q] Playboy: What's the answer, then? Just hiring more cops?

[A] Koch: Frankly, I don't think that would necessarily solve our problem, because [laughs] 32,000 people were arrested for felonies in 1980 just in the borough of Manhattan. Out of this 32,000, only 6000 were indicted! There's more than just simple apprehension of the criminal. The system is made up of the cops, the D.A.'s office, the courts, the probation service and the prisons. They all have problems. We could use more cops and we've added to the number of cops, but it's quite expensive.

[Q] Playboy: One of the most common pressures applied to a politician is the lure of easy money. But a theme you've underscored in this interview is the honesty of this administration. Is it possible--is it conceivable--that some scandal could erupt?

[A] Koch: It's simply not possible that five years from now, someone is going to find that this administration was crooked. It isn't. I can't say there aren't any crooks in the city government, since with 250,000 people working for us, both in city and in state jobs, there've gotta be some crooks. But I do not tolerate it. If I find out you're a crook, I won't move you out without anybody knowing about it because it might be an embarrassment. No, I'll call the D.A. personally and say, "Get this guy!"

[Q] Playboy: That sounds like a real hardass style. On the other hand, you're quoted as saying, "I run the city like a large Jewish family." What does that mean, that you're everybody's mother?

[A] Koch: I didn't say it, Bob Wagner said it. I suppose he means that I delegate authority and listen to their opinions. Few other administrations have allowed commissioners to do what they want to do within the boundaries of policy as set by the mayor. Wherever possible, I like to come to a decision on a consensus basis. But I don't wait for a consensus. I discuss the matter with all the people involved. I hear them out. I see if there's a common thread. When the positions have been unanimous or near-unanimous, I can't recall ever saying, "Well, I'm opposed." More likely than not, however, there isn't consensus, and then I'll say, "This is what we're going to do. This is the policy." The Jewish-family aspect of it is that during meetings, you can say anything you want, be as tough or as critical as you feel you have to be. You can take different positions, as though it were a family sitting down at dinner.

[Q] Playboy: Once again, the hell with decorum?

[A] Koch: Of course. Only, when I've made a decision, then you gotta go and carry it out. In private with me, you can continue to try to persuade me that I've made a mistake, but you cannot shoot my policies down in public.

[Q] Playboy: For many politicians, it would be a liability to grant an interview, especially an interview as extensive as this one, unless the risks were worth it. If you're not campaigning for re-election, why are you doing this? Why bother?

[A] Koch: I don't want to be ridiculously modest, but when people talk about New York City, they talk about me. Ergo, I believe I help the city by being up front and visible. But there are other aspects of it. I enjoy the jousting. I like the battle of wits.

[Q] Playboy: The confrontation?

[A] Koch: The intellectual discussion. You call it confrontation. But it has nothing to do with furthering my political ambitions. I know, I've heard the rumors about myself: that I might run for New York state governor; that or as the Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee in 1984. But anyone who suggests I run for governor is no friend of mine. [Laughs] It's a terrible position, and besides, it requires living in Albany, which is small-town life at its worst. I wouldn't even consider it. As for the Vice-Presidency, well, everybody says that next to the President, I have the most exciting job in the country. Not to denigrate Senators or anyone else, I think they're right. My job might even be better than the President's.

[Q] Playboy: You're grinning again.

[A] Koch:[Laughs] I know. My job is better than the President's. I don't want to say that New York's mayor is as powerful as the President, but in terms of direct involvement in the daily lives of people, I may have more impact. I have lots of authority and I think I use it.

[Q] Playboy: While you're still grinning, are you entirely ruling out, say, a MondaleKoch draft in 1984?

[A] Koch: It will not happen. There are no drafts in this country. Take my word for it, you're a candidate or you're not. I'm not a candidate.

[Q] Playboy: Not even if people whose judgment you respect were to say, "Ed, think beyond yourself. It's important for the country"? So?

[A] Koch: The answer is, I'm not a candidate, so. It has nothing to do with shyness, coyness or reticence. Either I will run for re-election for a third term or I will go into the private sector. I used to say that at the age of 65, I'd ask for a position on the editorial board of The New York Times. [Laughs] I happen to have a great sense of inner security about my abilities, so I don't have to be jollied up or stroked about how effective I am. I know it. I also know that there are a myriad of people out there just as able and effective as I am. But right now, I'm not worried about re-election.

[Q] Playboy: All right. As we wind up, we'd like to try, one last time, to challenge this cheery assessment of life in the city, to get you to admit that dirt and crime can take their toll---

[A] Koch: Look, I've said that crime is escalating everywhere, and we're getting our share of that escalation in New York. But if you live here and are affected by crime, what are your options? Escape? Escape to where? You can't escape. Crime follows you to the suburbs, because, unquestionably, suburban crime is rising faster than our own. It's ridiculous to talk about fleeing to the suburbs as a refuge.

[Q] Playboy: America is more than big cities and overcrowded suburbs. For many, there's still a more pastoral existence-- life in the country.

[A] Koch: The country? Rural America? This is a joke! [Laughs]

[Q] Playboy: Why?

[A] Koch: Rural America doesn't exist anymore, not even the farms. That day will never come back. The wish for it is nostalgia, pure and simple.

[Q] Playboy: Come on, Ed. Of course it exists, and there are lots of people who've become fed up with city life-- college-educated people who have taken pay cuts to live better lives out in the country.

[A] Koch: It may be that there are hordes of people who've moved to rural America, but I'm not aware of them. Also, this is an elitist approach, and I don't include too many elitists among my friends.

[Q] Playboy: Then at least respond to the urge many people have to get away from urban life---

[A] Koch: What do you want me to say?

[Q] Playboy: Just that you can't keep applying this relentless logic of yours to the reality that many people are scared shitless of living in New York City.

[A] Koch: You're raising a red herring.

[Q] Playboy: A red herring? By trying to get you off your hobbyhorse?

[A] Koch: By showing the infirmities of New York City.

[Q] Playboy: Not the infirmities. By acknowledging that New York City has enormous problems--real ones, not illusions. If you admit to the problems, then it becomes more credible when you speak of New York's advantages.

[A] Koch: Correct. But let's leave out rural America, with the cows.

[Q] Playboy: Cows? God, Ed Koch really is a snob!

[A] Koch: Well, choosing between living with people and living with animals.... [Laughs] But look, there's no question: Living in New York City means paying a price, obviously. There's a lack of privacy. The crowds; the hugeness of the city. There's also the anonymity, because nobody gives a damn--but this can be nice in a way, since it means you can lead your own life; nobody interferes. You also pay a price in the environment: air pollution. The cost of living is generally higher--but so are the salaries, and there are always sales where you can shop cheaply if you take the time.

[Q] Playboy: What about the loss of time because of lousy city services, late subways?

[A] Koch: As opposed to wasting time in a car? Or, out in the country, wasting time in a pickup truck? [Laughs] When you have to drive 20 miles to buy a gingham dress or [laughs louder] a Sears Roebuck suit? [Cracks up] This rural-America thing--I'm telling you, it's a joke.

[Q] Playboy: But the fact that people are moving to the Sunbelt is no joke.

[A] Koch: I don't deny the phenomenon of the Sunbelt, but that operates on fantasy, too. People are told that there's no unemployment in Houston, and there probably isn't--but that's because the Federal Government has discriminated against the Northeast and the older cities. But moving to the Sunbelt isn't the answer. It's a fad. Ultimately, a lot of people will be coming back. Despite our transportation problem, despite our crime, they are coming back. Obviously, many people prefer New York's more hurried pace. And nothing prevents you from slowing down by relaxing in a theater or strolling in the park. We happen to have great parks, and the truth of the matter is that the safest police precinct in New York City happens to be Central Park.

[Q] Playboy: Because people don't go to Central Park! At least not at night.

[A] Koch: That's not entirely true---

[Q] Playboy: No? Then shall we take a stroll together this evening? Let's cross Central Park, from east to west, just after dusk, OK?

[A] Koch: Not me! [Laughs] That's just tempting fate. Nothing would happen, but that's just tempting fate!

[Q] Playboy: OK, one last question--and it's the one you always ask: How're you doin', Ed?

[A] Koch: During the last campaign, I used to say to voters, "It may be that as a result of everything I've done, a lot of you will get together and throw me out. That's OK. I'll get a better job, but you won't get a better mayor." Now, what I was honestly trying to convey was that I'd like to be recalled as one of the great mayors of the city of New York, and I'm going to do everything to accomplish that. Not the greatest mayor, mind you, but as one of the great mayors. I know that life is ephemeral, particularly in politics. Nothing you do will last forever; it just doesn't work that way. But what I want to do is put things into place that will last for a long time before they go back to the old way. And that, I think I've done.

"Have you ever lived in the suburbs? It's sterile, it's nothing, it's wasting your life."

*This exchange took place a week before Koch told some New York City-daily reporters in early December 1981 that he considered Bellamy a "horror show." In the ensuing local furor, he apologized and the two political rivals apparently made their peace.