It’s old news by now that Michael Bloomberg spent $100 million of his own money to campaign for a third term as New York City mayor, and he won.
Here’s what the talking heads are saying:
“(New Yorkers) do not like his high-handed ways, they do not like watching a negative campaign waged by a billionaire who outspent his opponent 14 to 1.” – Joyce Purnick, The Huffington Post.
“Of course, if it weren’t for his money, Bloomberg wouldn’t be mayor Bloomberg.” – Ken Rudin, NPR.com.
“Perhaps money was the only thing that caused Bloomberg to get re-elected despite heavy criticism over his past actions.” – Matthew Morgal, ToTheCenter.com.
Here’s what I’m saying:
Who cares?
Bloomberg is out of touch with voters. Bloomberg uses his money and power to get elected. Bloomberg changes laws to further his agenda. Haven’t John McCain, George W. Bush, and Teddy Kennedy all been successful politicians?
The point is, if you’re a voter, criticizing Bloomberg for these crimes is foolish, because whomever you voted for as your mayor, governor, congressman, or President has done the exact same things.
So he’s rich? Forbes.com notes that while a few – very few – U.S. Presidents were born poor, none were struggling for cash at the time of their elections.
So he spends? Obama spent over half a billion on his campaign. (I understand we’re comparing NYC vs. nation, but the point is these things don’t come cheaply.)
The fact of the matter is that Bloomberg has done nothing more than exactly what is necessary to win one of the most important political offices in America. And judging by his slim margin of victory, it seems he hardly did enough.
Let’s look at the factors working against Bloomberg:
- He calls himself a Republican, which gets him smeared, but acts like a Democrat, which also gets him smeared; it’s hard for any influential organization to support him publicly, and therefore he raises very little in campaign donations.
- NYC boasts six times as many registered Democrats than Republicans.
- Bloomberg was working against public resentment after having the NYC term-limits law overturned to allow him to run for a third term.
- He was facing a black opponent in the Age of Obama.
When considering this, who can blame Bloomberg for springing for the $100 million? Certainly even his critics understand that in modern politics, candidates use whatever money, power, and connections at their disposal to gain the upper hand.
More likely, the resentment of Bloomberg’s campaign tactics is the resentment of his ability and willingness to flaunt his wealth during a recession that is hurting so many American families.
And it’s hard to blame anybody for wanting to gag when they or somebody they know is out of work, losing a home, or putting off retirement, and here comes Millionaire Mike making it rain in the Big Apple, dropping $100 mil of his pocket change to retain his power and public status. What a jerk, right?
Wrong. Personally, I love it. I wish he’d have dropped twice that much. I wish Warren Buffet would waltz into Detroit and pay off voters one at a time to get voted mayor, even if it cost him a few billion. It wouldn’t offend me if Bill Gates bought his way into Dallas, or if Oprah paid for a seat in Los Angeles.
Think of it this way:
If your town were facing an obesity crisis, wouldn’t you want a town council of personal trainers?
If your state scored nationally-lowest on the SATs, wouldn’t you like your governor to have a Doctorate in Secondary Education?
And if your country was facing an economic crisis, shouldn’t you want the largest centers of commerce in that country to be run by self-made billionaires?
Sure, Bloomberg is arrogant and out of touch and yada yada yada. But aren’t all elected officials? And if that’s the case, why not get one that has at least proven that he knows what the hell he’s doing?
I think that’s worth well more than $100 million…especially if it’s Michael Bloomberg’s money.
|
