With Michael Bloomberg’s announcement the other week that he has left the GOP, there has been much speculation about an independent bid for the presidency on his part. Bloomberg himself refuses to rule anything out, and, indeed, the mere act of leaving the Republican Party seems to indicate that the mayor may be taking the first steps towards such a bid.
While at least some progressives may be enamoured with Bloomberg, I am not. Nor is there any way I can see myself voting for him for President.
As far as Republicans go, Michael Bloomberg wasn’t that bad. Indeed, while I doubt I would have voted for him either of the times he ran for mayor, I can agree that, from my admittedly distant perspective (I currently live in southern Pennsylvania) his tenure as New York City Mayor seems to have been fairly successful. Bloomberg himself, despite his former party affiliation, is more "center left" politically. In the past, I had viewed him as one of the few Republicans left in the United States who was capable of actually governing.
It should be noted that Mayor Bloomberg’s "acceptability" as a Republican probably came from the fact that, up until he decided to run for New York City mayor, he wasn’t one. As late as 1999, he was a Democrat – an affiliation he had held for most of his adult life. Bloomberg’s decision to become a Republican was a pragmatic one, based on the politics of reality. The New York City Democratic Party, full of racial and ethnic fissures, was subject to intense, bitter, and crowded mayoral primaries. Often, the candidate who won the Democratic nomination found his time in the general election consumed with mending lingering wounds from the primary, rather than focusing on winning. Bloomberg looked at that situation, evaluated it, and decided that he’d have a clearer shot at winning both the primary, and the general election, by running as a Republican. For the most purely political of reasons, he became a member of the GOP.
As I said, Bloomberg’s actual record, upon taking office, has not been horrible. Certainly, one’s past performance as an elected official should be taken into account, in any election. But, such performance is not the "end all" of voting requirements. Contrary to what we’re told, party affiliation – past, as well as present – does count. It counts because, by joining a political party, a candidate makes a public commitment to a set of ideals. And, it counts because, by joining a party, a candidate is choosing which set of individuals – on the national stage, as well as local – he wishes to identify himself with, and who he wishes to publicly and vocally campaign for.
When looked at from that angle, choosing a political party is as much a moral decision as it is practical. And, from a moral stand point, Michael Bloomberg, when he decided to run for Mayor, opted to associate himself with the party of Trent Lott, the party of Jessie Helms, the party of George W. Bush, and the party of Dick Cheney. For reasons of "political ease," Mayor Bloomberg chose to align himself with a party movement that represents the antithesis of his own political beliefs. In essence, Michael Bloomberg’s opportunity to be mayor was paid for by selling his soul to the party of hate mongering and pre-emptive strike. And it was paid for by not only throwing in his lot with those people, but also by actively campaigning for them.
As President Bush took office, there were those of us on the left who realized what he stood for, and took to speaking out against him. We opposed cuts to critical programs, we stood strong against violations of civil liberties, we spoke out against the Iraq War, and the doctrine of pre-emptive strike, even when we were mocked and hated for it. We realized the horrible implications of the direction that the Bush administration was taking this country in, and our sense of right and wrong, along with our strongly held political beliefs, prevented us from "taking the easy way out." We worked hard to oppose the administration. And, as the 2004 elections neared, we poured our heart and soul into removing it from power, regardless of the costs to us personally.
What was Michael Bloomberg up to at that time?
I want to thank President Bush for supporting New York City and changing the homeland security funding formula and for leading the global war on terrorism.
The president deserves our support.
We are here to support him.
And I am here to support him.
It is said that a special place in hell must be reserved for those who, in a time of crisis, do nothing. Michael Bloomberg, as a reasonable person of the "center left," should have known what the Bush administration was doing to our country. Yet, he did worse than nothing: While the rest of us were fighting to remove George W. Bush from office, Michael Bloomberg stood with him. While the rest of us were standing up against Bush's policies, in Iraq, and at home, Michael Bloomberg stood with him. And, while the rest of us were attacked for being "unpatriotic" and "un-American" for criticizing the ill advised actions, poor decision making, and arrogant attitude of George W. Bush, Michael Bloomberg stood with him.
It's not as though Mayor Bloomberg didn't have a choice. He could have made a stand against the direction the Republican Party was taking America. Instead of curiously waiting until this year, when rumblings of a Bloomberg presidential candidacy could be heard, he could have publicly rejected the Republicans – and their candidate - in 2004. Or, like Lincoln Chafee, the former Republican U.S. Senator from Rhode Island, he could have remained a Republican, but voted for a write in candidate, instead of George W. Bush. Both of those options were open to Mayor Bloomberg in 2004. Instead, the Mayor looked at George W. Bush, looked at the policies he was inflicting upon America, and made the decision to stand with him. Loudly, and vocally.
Party affiliation counts. It counts philosophically, and, it counts because it impacts who you will be throwing your political "lot in life" in with. Bloomberg made his decision based on opportunity instead of belief, and, as a result, played a role in advocating one of the worst presidencies in American history. Indeed, contrary to the theory Michael Bloomberg may wish to advance today, a failure by "both major parties" is not responsible for the problems of America today. For most of the past six years, the Republicans have controlled every branch of the federal government. The failure of America to deal with its problems can primarily be placed on their shoulders. And, Michael Bloomberg was there, cheerleading for them, every step of the way.
Mayor Bloomberg, if he wishes to run as an independent who bashes "both parties" for "failing America," should not be allowed to forget that. As a candidate, Bloomberg should be forced to face his kind words of support for the Bush administration. He should be forced to face a choice between standing by, or repudiating, the president’s policies. If he wishes to repudiate them, he should be forced to face questions about why he waited to do so until now. About why, in years past, he left that effort to those of us who struggled under ridicule. About why he chose to hold his tongue until public opinion was on his side. About why, exactly, in 2004, he worked actively against us, and actively for the candidate advancing policies he now wishes to reject. And, about why, even today, as he preaches his "independence," he has not entirely severed his ties with the Republican Party:
At the same time that Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has been traveling the country in recent weeks denouncing partisan politics, he has been quietly sending a very different message to the state’s Republican Party: I will continue to support the G.O.P. team.
On June 19, shortly before Mr. Bloomberg announced that he was leaving the Republican Party, he telephoned the state’s most powerful Republican, Joseph L. Bruno, the Senate majority leader.
The mayor wanted Mr. Bruno to know the announcement was coming. But Mr. Bloomberg, a major contributor to New York Republicans, also sought to reassure the majority leader that despite the change, he would still back Mr. Bruno and his Republican colleagues in the Senate.
If Mayor Michael Bloomberg does indeed run for president as an independent, his commitment to crass political opportunism will have taken him on a journey from Democrat, to Bush pimping Republican, to Independent who bashes both parties, while trying desperately to make the world forget the part he played – and the part he continues to play in New York State – in trying to keep one of them in power.
That is not acceptable. The 2008 elections should be about changing America. They should not be about rewarding the soulless political calculations of Michael Bloomberg.