I’m hardly an expert on Michael Bloomberg and I’m sure someone can write a more comprehensive case against his candidacy (please do!). But even a casual survey of the news brings up enough negatives about him to put Bloomberg at the absolute bottom of my list.
Here’s my quickly slapped-together argument of what it all adds up to:
1. Bloomberg has a long history of institutional racism
This has been covered a lot, and rightfully so, because by itself it should be disqualifying.
- As the Republican mayor of New York from 2002 to 2013, Bloomberg ramped up the racist “stop-and-frisk” policing program instituted by his Republican predecessor, Rudy Giuliani. Under Bloomberg, stop-and-frisks skyrocketed from under 100,000 a year to nearly half a million a year, before falling in his final year in office — after they were ruled unconstitutional. Incredibly, even after the ruling, Bloomberg continued to push for the discredited policy.
- As mayor, Bloomberg fought tooth-and-nail against compensating the Central Park Five, the five teenagers who were convicted on the basis of false testimony and coerced confessions. The Five were found innocent in 2002, Bloomberg’s first year in office. Over the next 12 years, Bloomberg spent $6 million in city money to fight their just pleas for compensation. Less than a year after Bloomberg left office, the Five were awarded a $41 million settlement. Today Bloomberg refuses to discuss the issue. See: “Michael Bloomberg addresses his prior support for city's handling of Central Park Five case” (CBS, Dec. 30, 2019) and Zack Linly, “Bloomberg Plays Clueless When Questioned About Central Park 5” (The Root, Jan. 1, 2020).
Is there more? Yes, there is! These are just two of the most egregious cases.
2. Bloomberg has a Trumpian history of attacks on women
This is well-documented, so I’m just going to quote and link here; and, just like his documented history of racism, by itself it should be disqualifying.
Disparaging comments. Demeaning jokes. As the mogul reportedly considers a 2020 presidential run, it remains an open question whether his long-alleged history of undermining women will affect his chances.
—Megan Gardner, “‘I’d Do Her’: Mike Bloomberg and the Underbelly of #MeToo” (The Atlantic, September 19, 2018)
...in October 1989, Bloomberg was unhappy with the outcome of a business meeting. He said to a newly-hired female Company sales person, “If [the clients] told you to lay down and strip naked so they could f--- you, would you do that too?” He repeated similar words or substance at frequent intervals throughout the period of plaintiff’s employment….
...in or about July 1993, Bloomberg heard that a female Company sales person, who had just had a baby, was having difficulty finding a nanny. He yelled loudly at her, in the presence of a large group of employees,“It’s a f------ baby! All it does is eat and s---! It doesn’t know the difference between you and anyone else! All you need is some black who doesn’t even have to speak English to rescue it from a burning building!” The sales person cried at hearing her employer say such things to her, in so public a manner….
—from Michael Kranish, “Mike Bloomberg for years has battled women’s
allegations of profane, sexist comments” (Washington Post, February 15, 2020)
3. Bloomberg is anti-poor and anti-union
Because Michigan is my state, I’m just gonna start with the fact that (as mentioned below) he donated to and supported Rick Snyder for Governor of Michigan because Snyder was so strongly anti-union. For me, that alone does it. But add these snippets, and ask yourself how exactly how effective Bloomberg’s going to be at fighting the inequality that plagues our nation:
-
Bloomberg made life worse for the poor in New York — as detailed in the linked article by Bob Hennelly for Salon / Raw Story, Dec. 15, 2019.
-
“Asked about another hot-button topic in the primary, student loan debt, Bloomberg acknowledged the rising cost of an education but said “you can't forgive it all…I think we have to step back and say, ‘Wait a second, where does all this debt come from?’ ” (“Bloomberg talks guns, student loan debt and who he sees as the Bloomberg voter”, NBC, Jan. 1, 2020)
-
He has questioned why we have a minimum wage. You trust this guy to push for a higher minimum wage?
-
He has fought against taxes on the wealthy. You believe him when he claims to support a wealth tax now?
-
From 2012: “Mike Bloomberg And His 11 Homes Think New York Homeless Shelters Are Too Damn Nice. Homeless Disagree” (James King, Village Voice, Aug. 12, 2012)
-
From 2013: “Bloomberg Sues Again to Overturn 2012 Living Wage Law” (Colby Hamilton, DNA Info, Dec. 16, 2013)
And more, and more, and more.
4. Bloomberg is a Republican, and his donor history shows it
Just a quick dip into Bloomberg’s public donor history shows that he contributed:
- the maximum $2700 to sketchy NY Republican Pete King’s reelection to the House in 2016\
- the maximum $2700 to Pennsylvania Republican Pat Toomey’s reelection to the Senate in 2016
- a handy $250,000 to the “Mississippi Conservatives PAC,” set up in 2014 to ensure the reelection of Mississippi Republican Thad Cochran to the Senate
- a cool $2,300,000 from his own PAC, plus a ritzy fundraiser at his mansion, for Michigan Republican Rick Snyder’s reelection as governor in 2014 — and this, just months after the depravity of Snyder’s involvement in the Flint water crisis was revealed.
And much, much, much more! This is literally just the first page. I bet some pundits will look at the list and say “Nonpartisanship!” but I look at it and say “No way.”
For more info: Alex Kotch, “Democratic Presidential Candidate Michael Bloomberg Is a GOP Bankroller.”
5. Bloomberg is so charisma-negative, only his millions can save him
I’m just sayin’. Tell me you’d vote for that guy if he hadn’t paid for a billion ads.
6. Bloomberg uses his billions to protect himself — and no, that’s not a good thing
The most frustrating argument “in favor of” Bloomberg is that he will use his billions to help us, not to hurt us. You know where I’ve heard that one before? That’s right: Donald J. Trump made that exact same argument to support his candidacy in 2015-2016. And you know what? It worked! In the sense of: yes, Trump did convince a bunch of people to vote for him. And then he proceeded to use his money and influence exactly as he had done throughout his life: to help himself, not us.
Why exactly do you think Mike Bloomberg will be any different?
We already know, after all, that Bloomberg is not only willing and able to throw his money around to get what he wants — whatever he wants — because he’s done exactly that for years. Just one example, from the NYT report “Bloomberg’s Billions: How the Candidate Built an Empire of Influence” by Alex Burns and Nicholas Kulish (Feb. 15, 2020):
That chilling effect was apparent in 2015 to researchers at the Center for American Progress, a liberal policy group, when they turned in a report on anti-Muslim bias in the United States. Their draft included a chapter of more than 4,000 words about New York City police surveillance of Muslim communities; Mr. Bloomberg was mentioned by name eight times in the chapter, which was reviewed by The Times.
When the report was published a few weeks later, the chapter was gone. So was any mention of Mr. Bloomberg’s name.
Yasmine Taeb, an author of the report, said in an interview that the authors had been instructed to make drastic revisions or remove the chapter, and opted to do the latter rather than “whitewash the N.Y.P.D.’s wrongdoings.” She said she found it “disconcerting” to be asked to remove the chapter “because of how it was going to be perceived by Mayor Bloomberg.” [...]
But at least one senior official wrote at the time that there would be a “strong reaction from Bloomberg world if we release the report as written,” according to an email reviewed by The Times. And three people with direct knowledge of the situation said Mr. Bloomberg was a factor.
Alienating him might not have been a cost-free proposition. When the report came out, he had already given the organization three grants worth nearly $1.5 million, and in 2017 he contributed $400,000 more, according to Ms. Léger and the center’s limited public disclosure of its donors.
If you think this is a good thing, all I can say is: Donald Trump only wishes he had Bloomberg’s kind of money, because then he could really make his problems “disappear.”
By which I mean: not disappear as in really. Not as in, his racism and sexism and anti-worker activism won’t really hurt people.
I mean, as in: make them disappear from the think tanks reports and, eventually, from the front pages.
Here’s the thing: Bloomberg has promised that if he isn’t the nominee, he’ll use his money to oppose Trump no matter who comes out on top. I say. let’s take him up on that offer: deny him the nomination and see if he ponies up. If he does, great. If he doesn’t — then it’s much better to know that he was never on our side without having him in the White House when we discover it.
Bloomberg has been a racist, sexist, narcissistic, anti-poor, anti-union, pro-wealthy plutocrat his entire political career. Sort of like, you know, that guy we’re trying to evict from the Oval Office. Do we have better options? You bet we do!
Sunday, Feb 16, 2020 · 3:43:24 AM +00:00
·
David Michigan
A quick update in response to several comments: Please note that I am not “digging up dirt” on a candidate. I am not “doing the Republicans’ work for them.” I am not reporting on my super-secret oppo research expedition to the Ukraine in an effort to spread fake news dug up by the Kremlin. I am merely compiling what I have read over just the past couple of days, while trying to avoid grading papers (!), in major news outlets like the Washington Post, New York Times, New Yorker, Atlantic, CNN, CBS, NBC…
If this is what the major media are already reporting about Bloomberg, can you imagine what actual oppo research will dig up? And can you imagine what the GOP dirt machine will do with it? Please.
For some, the fact that MB can buy himself a candidacy seems to be a plus. Me, I’m concerned about inequality, wealth concentration, and corruption; I think it’s a negative.
To be clear: if MB somehow buys his way to being the D candidate, I’ll still vote for the D over Trump or any Republican. All I’m arguing is that he will be an astoundingly bad candidate.
Sunday, Feb 16, 2020 · 2:38:16 PM +00:00
·
David Michigan
Apparently I need to add one more heading:
7. Bloomberg is an oligarch
As if this weren’t obvious! But it seems that it needs pointing out, and in a well-written article for the Nonzero newsletter, “Mike Bloomberg and the oligarchy question,” Robert Wright analyzes how Bloomberg’s oligarchical tendencies differ from Trump’s:
But I now see that characterizing Bloomberg and Trump as two billionaires, and implying that they have comparable oligarchic potential, is misleading. And not just because, for all we know, Trump is lying about being a billionaire. If you look at their formulas for getting to the White House, you realize that Bloomberg and Trump are different kinds of warning signs about the future of American democracy. [...]
This week somebody leaked the news that an anti-Sanders ad still in development would imply that on women’s issues Sanders is as bad as Trump. It turned out the ad was being produced by Women Vote, an appendage of Emily’s List, which has long defined its mission as “getting pro-choice Democratic women elected to office.” Why would a group like that try to harm the emphatically pro-choice Sanders? As of 2018, Bloomberg had given some $6 million to Emily’s List. Nobody’s proven that the ad was being prepared at the behest of the Bloomberg campaign, but nobody seems to have come up with a plausible alternative explanation of this strange development. [...]
All told, if Bloomberg becomes president, he will have shown that, in the modern age, an incredibly rich and reasonably capable politician can basically buy the presidency. It’s not easy, and it takes years of work, but it’s doable.
This grim lesson is different from the grim lesson taught by Donald Trump in 2016. Trump used some of his own money, but not tons, and his campaign expenditures didn’t dwarf those of his rivals. What was ominous about Trump’s victory was its illustration of what can happen in an age of balkanized media, precision-targeted social media ads, and increasingly impotent party elites. [...]
If Bloomberg’s basic model is influence buying, Trump’s is influence peddling.
It’s a difference, and it makes a difference (it is more true, though still not entirely true, that Bloomberg “can’t be bought” in ways that Trump obviously can). But while Bloomberg would be preferable to Trump as president, his election would still signal that our democracy is slipping away.
I wish I could say that our democracy isn’t for sale. Can I?