Issues & Opinions

As seen more than a month ago in a piece entited “Non-Campaigning“, I hypothesized:

Picture this: Bloomberg is a Republican in name only, and no, I’m not using that term in a derogatory fashion. Back when he was a Democrat, to the best of my knowledge, he could adequately have been described as a Democrat in name only, too.

He’s a capable politician, and a capable executive in charge of a large and complex polity. (Please ignore, for the purpose of this analysis, his nannyish actions on smoking and trans-fats, well-intentioned as I’m sure they were) These attributes seem far more interesting than some clap-on/clap-off political party affiliation. And as a result, the presumption that he would or should run in the race for the Republican presidential nomination strikes me as anything but a foregone conclusion.

Hardly a brilliant observation, if we’re being honest with each other.

However, tonight we’re told by tomorrow’s WSJ: “Bloomberg Move Fuels ‘08 Buzz”

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s decision to leave the Republican Party fueled talk he might launch an independent bid for president later this year. It also underscored Republicans’ dim prospects for 2008, and pointed to broader concerns about both parties’ performance.

In a statement, the mayor again suggested he has no plans to run for president. He said he was merely matching his party registration with his nonpartisan policies, an apparent effort to distance himself from the rancor that has marked U.S. politics in recent years.

…

“A nonpartisan approach has worked wonders in New York,” he added. “Any successful elected executive knows that real results are more important than partisan battles and that good ideas should take precedence over rigid adherence to any particular political ideology. Working together, there’s no limit to what we can do.”

Golly, that sounds almost as good and exciting as it is utterly unworkable. While I wish Hizzoner well, just because something works in NYC doesn’t mean it will work everywhere else, let alone anywhere else. The differences between the largest interest groups in New York, however they might be arrayed on any given day, are trivial compared both to the number and the size of the differences when politics is taken out of the boroughs.

Bloomberg appears to be a smart, honest man. He also appears poorly versed in the exercise of complexity theory and strategy he would get in a far less homogenous society than that found in New York. He seems, almost, to be basing this Quixotic wish for universal harmony and nonpartisanship on an assumption that he can get all the players in any given melodrama together in a room, rhetorically bash some heads, and get on to the next task. The bully pulpit of the US Presidency, sad to say, isn’t nearly powerful enough to facilitate this.

Which is a relief, really - partisanship, for all the ugliness it engenders in its more extreme manifestations (e.g. since Nov 2000), is the way that diametrically opposed interests are resolved. Some things can be fought about and solved. Far more require that they be fought about, fought about some more, sulked over, rethought, fought about again, and either given up or won, depending on the partisan politics of the day. Partisanship, at a level hopefully less than that found today, is a necessary part of the process, all due respect to Mr. Bloomberg.

There’s another matter here, perhaps a big one: Nobody’s really going to spend a lot of time questioning Bloomberg’s intelligence, at least not if they value their time. However, his political judgment is open to serious question, including the possibility that he actually does harbor the absurd thought that the US is just like New York, just bigger. Specifically, have a look at the first item in today’s version of the WSJ Opinionjournal Best of the Web.

In that item, which James Taranto subtitled “Bloomberg’s Bigotry” (a characterization I think is overripe, and probably meant tongue-in-cheek), you’ll find an excerpt from a speech Bloomberg gave Monday at Google’s headquarters, as reported in today’s NY Sun.

Mr. Bloomberg’s freewheeling question-and-answer session was peppered with the kind of provocative, blunt talk that could appeal to some voters while alienating others. “It’s probably because of our bad educational system, but the percentage of people who believe in creationalism is really scary for a country that’s going to have to compete in a world where science and medicine require a better understanding,” he said in one such foray.

Mr. Taranto goes on to cite statistics indicating that 60% of Americans have beliefs which Bloomberg seems quite willing to deride. That’s bad politics, and not because he should be telling everyone what they want to hear. I’d hate for hime to simply tell people what they want to hear, not least because sometimes, what people want to hear is utter, drooling stupidity. The problem is that, much like he’s done in New York relative to trans-fats and smoking, he’s a fan of strong statements that issues of his choosing should be treated as “black and white”.

Totally aside from the fact that there’s no such thing as “creationalism“, and thus it can’t be a black and white issue (I know what he actually meant, and his slipped tongue matters not at all), it’s bad politics to go around telling people what they should believe. Doing so leads inexorably to (wait for it…) rank, frank, and virulent partisanship. It’s part of how we got to the sorry partisan state of current affairs.

And while I agree with his statement about creationism at its extremes, I don’t think it forms a good basis for either a campaign or a governing strategy. The complete separation of matters of science from matters of faith is also not a black and white issue, as examples from Taranto’s piece (for which, go read it) clearly illustrate.

So, Bloomberg’s now an Independent. Hooray for him! He’s out on the campaign trail (notwithstanding his specific claims not to be). Hooray for him! He’s speaking his mind, bluntly and forcefully, wowing crowds in Silicon Valley, in New York, and, well… I can’t think of anywhere else he’s wowed a crowd.

I’d expect that many people who’ve not already reached the state will soon come to agree with me: He’s an interesting guy, with some simultaneously excellent, business-like, and totally unworkable ideas. And would be hugely fun to watch in a campaign, right up to his first Ross Perot moment, when we’d all be able to watch his political future evaporate in a puff. And we’d all move on to the next train wreck.

He ain’t going to be running, I guess I’m saying.

Bookmark to: