Bloomberg forever
It's not surprising that hard times can strengthen the gravitational pull toward an incumbent politician. But to stay in office, Mayor Michael Bloomberg must walk a delicate line as he tries to dismantle New York City’s voter-backed term limit system.
Despite the Mayor's popularity and the economic uncertainty besieging the city, his plan to extend his regime has already ignited intense controversy. Chafing at his backdoor power brokering and the disruption of city government dynamics, critics—from the grassroots and the political inner sanctum—fear an end-run around the democratic process, (“an attempt to suspend democracy,” as one opponent put it.)
The New York Times editorial page, on the other hand, calls term limits "profoundly undemocratic, arbitrarily denying voters the ability to choose between good politicians and bad." And certainly, even people opposed to the Mayor's political maneuvering on the issue want to get rid of term limits, too.
But does Bloomberg really deserve a shot at another four years in Gracie Mansion?
In a Slate column, Ron Rosenblum sees Bloomberg’s move as part of a classic narrative of demagoguery:
“[T]his mayor of mediocrity, enemy of trans fats who lets killer cranes crush people and buildings on a regular basis because of lax enforcement, the mayor who hasn't managed to get a 9/11 memorial off the ground in seven years (yes, I know there are other entities involved, but that basically says he's too weak to knock heads together and make it happen), suddenly this self-inflated suit looks in the mirror and decides: ‘The city cannot live without me.’“The excuse being given is that in this time of crisis we need a steady hand at the helm. And, of course, he was so prescient about the magnitude of the current crisis. You remember all those speeches he made in the past seven years about the potential market instability that subprime mortgages threatened? He was a lone voice crying in the wilderness. What's that, you say? You can't remember those speeches? Well, neither do I, but he must have made them because that might qualify him to say he is a better candidate than the other bungling billionaires who have wrecked our economy to protect our city from the consequences. Of course, Bloomberg had no access to detailed financial information. Oh, wait ...
“Anyway, here is the insultingly disingenuous way he turns the fact that the bill he sought to turn his power grab into some kind of virtue: ‘The mayor maintained he was still a supporter of term limits,’ according to the Times. ‘You're not taking away term limits,’ he said. ‘You're simply going from two terms to three terms.’
“And then, if he feels like it, maybe three terms to four terms. Just ignore the law the same way. It's such an insult to the intelligence that it alone should disqualify him.”
This concept of “Bloombergian entitlement,” Rosenblum says, reflects the raw opportunism occasioned by catastrophes like 9/11 and the financial crisis now unfolding before the newly empowered Treasury Secretary.
Bloomberg as dictator? A stretch perhaps, though stability and familiarity carry a high premium in times of uncertainty. But how much are New Yorkers willing to value experience above change?
E-mail
Facebook
Digg
Delicious
Comments (4)
In general, I am against term limits and would agree with those who say let the voters decide.
However, I make an exception in the case of Mayor Bloomberg. Because he is prepared to spend $70 million on his campaign, who will run against him? In the absence of term limits, Bloomberg will keep buying additional terms as Mayor.
In the meantime, he treats our neighborhoods as if they were assets on a balance sheet, rather than the fabric of our lives.
Mayor Bloomberg is the poster child for why we NEED term limits. Without term limits, Bloomberg willl be Mayor for as long as he chooses to be, unless another billionaire runs against him.
Mike Bloomberg, the man who, more than anyone, contributed to turning Manhattan into a glassy, soulless playground for the rich. I wouldn't vote for him under any circumstances.
If the current economic crisis doesn't point out why there should be term limits, nothing will. There should be no such thing as 'professional politicians'. They should all be successful people from different walks of life who step in for a period of time, represent their constituents, and then return to private life.
Hasn't enough damage been done by career politicians?
To Mayor Bloomberg's defense, though he might not have given speeches on the "potential market instability that subprime mortgages threatened," he has been a consistent advocate for ensuring the financial security of the city. This has included saving revenue from boom times to use in the inevitable lean times to come. I would tend to say that is the behavior to be expected from a mayor rather than prescient and specific predictions of disasters in the financial industry, a field in the purview more of the Federal, rather than City, government.