Mike Bloomberg Isn't Worth the Cost

Mayor Mike Bloomberg (D-NY)

It appears in the past week that Michael Bloomberg, former NYC mayor, has started to "have his moment" with the press.  This was surely inevitable, and I'm honestly kind of surprised that Tom Steyer never got his.  Perhaps it's simply that even a man as ungodly wealthy as Steyer cannot compete with Bloomberg's billions.  I've read somewhere that Bloomberg could give everyone in America $100...and still have $20 billion leftover to run his campaign.  That's an absurd amount of money, and unlike other insanely wealthy figures (think, say, Donald Trump or Mitt Romney) he appears very likely to be willing to invest that money into his race, and it's paying off.  While he's running a unique strategy (avoiding the first four states, as well as not taking donations so he has not qualified for the debates, though that appears like it'll change with his poll numbers being too good), it hasn't floundered yet (nor, it's worth recalling, has it succeeded).  So before he becomes either a strange historical asterisk or gets hailed as a genius come Super Tuesday, I thought it would be worth examining his strategy and his candidacy on this blog.

Bloomberg is perhaps an actual moderate in an era where these figures don't really exist.  While some people are willing to throw these labels on someone like Joe Biden or Amy Klobuchar, that's not really the case.  These are very progressive candidates, and it's more the Overton Window (and comparing someone to one of the most liberal figures in Congress, Bernie Sanders) that makes them turn into "moderates."  But Bloomberg's career as a Republican, then Independent, and now Democrat has a mixed record that distinguishes himself in ways that make his politics hard to label.  His signature issues, climate change and gun control, are hard-left, and he's made a point of running on them rather than some of his track record as mayor (when he carried out the racist stop-and-frisk program and endorsed George W. Bush over John Kerry, something sure to come up if ever actually graces a debate stage with people like Biden, Klobuchar, and Warren, all of whom have worked closely with Kerry in the past).  Suffice it to say, he's the sort of candidate that has done poorly thus far in the primaries, and probably wouldn't be discussed at all were it not for his past office (as NYC Mayor) and for his ability to bring billions of dollars to the race.

That is inarguably his most appealing attribute for a Democratic Party that is looking for ways to gain an advantage on Donald Trump.  Bloomberg has enough money (estimates put it north his net worth at $50 billion or possibly higher) that he simply wouldn't need to fundraise to compete with Trump.  The Republican Party could fire at all cylinders, but thanks to the unique nature of fundraising laws, Bloomberg could cut his campaign a check for $5 billion, and all of the excess cash could go to the Democrats running down-ballot races.  Think of what that would mean for someone like Cal Cunningham or Theresa Greenfield-the $1 billion or so that Bloomberg might have raised for himself in 2016 would now go to winning them seats in the Senate.  That would be a huge tactical advantage, one that the Republicans simply don't have.  Donald Trump has not shown the same willingness to spend his own money on this race, and doesn't have the net worth of Bloomberg even if he did.  Sheldon Adelson & Charles Koch could conceivably try to match Bloomberg, but they'd be spending an awful lot of money on a White House they wouldn't get to personally inhabit.  Combined with owning a large media empire of wire services, tv networks, and radio, Bloomberg would be able to recreate a lot of the structural advantages that Republicans have, and even dwarf them.

But this comes at a price.  Mike Bloomberg might be an extremely attractive answer to beat Trump, and indeed for a lot of Democrats, that's all that they care about, but his deal comes with strings attached.  For starters, we will be forgiving someone whose tenure as NYC mayor was complicated, and frequently unacceptable.  His stop-and-frisk program frequently targeted young, innocent black and Latino men, and is a direct cause of many of the police shootings and "Black Lives Matter" political issues of today.  He has stated that men of color are more likely to be murderers, and has made gross, stereotypical comments about Native Americans in relation to the community paying taxes.  He is famously gross about his comments about women, particularly women who work for him, to the point where if he doesn't have an Access Hollywood October surprise, I'll be stunned.  You don't get to just erase that when it's a hallmark of your legacy.  His track record on privacy and civil liberty issues looks more like Lindsey Graham's voting record than Elizabeth Warren's, and during his time as mayor lower-and-middle income renters suffered disproportionately as their rents went up while their wages didn't.  He supported the Iraq War (much longer than most people, including Sec. Kerry, Sec. Clinton, and Sen. Biden) did, and he tried to shut down over 100 day care centers while mayor.

I'm not a member of the "purity police" who seem to not understand that a career in public life will lead to occasional misstatements and bad policy decisions.  But I'm going to be honest here-what the fuck if this is the best the Democrats can come up with to take on Donald Trump?  Mike Bloomberg-seriously?  This is not a moderate Democrat-this is a man who surely is only a Democrat right now because the Republicans have moved so far right he's just left in the middle, but he's right-of-center in way too many fields and is running in the wrong primary.  He's a misogynist who didn't give a damn about how racist his politics were until he wanted the votes of black people.  He is not a "moderate" in the same way as Biden or Buttigieg, who are only a moderate when compared to Sanders/Warren-he's someone whose politics are far to the right of most Democrats, not just voters, but even members of Congress.  If Joe Manchin can't be our nominee (people would laugh at such a suggestion), then why should Mike Bloomberg be?

And the reason is because of that money.  Bloomberg, should he succeed, will prove that with $5 billion you can bribe the electorate to win a party's nomination and the White House.  Already in an era where it's virtually impossible to be on the presidential stage without being rich (Pete Buttigieg is the only major candidate running whose net worth doesn't exceed $1 million), we'd be raising the bar to just a handful of Americans.  Is the soul of the Democratic Party, the only party left with a soul, worth $5 billion?  I know we have our differences, and I know that a lot of Democrats clamoring toward Bloomberg because they're petrified no one else can beat Bernie Sanders (whom they think can't beat Trump) this is scary, but please-take a second for some perspective.  There are good, decent politicians like Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, and Amy Klobuchar in this race still.  They have proven with their records, experience, and sacrifices to our country through decades of public service that they can be president, and we shouldn't fault them because they don't have $5 billion spending cash just sitting around their mansion.  Mike Bloomberg's tenure in public life has been terrible, and while I am not someone that is going to sniff if he wants to donate money to candidates (we need to end Citizens United, but cannot pretend it doesn't exist while it does), he doesn't deserve to be our nominee for any office, let alone POTUS.  It would be a truly sad day if the Democratic Party, so afraid of Donald Trump, took a deal with the devil when their were still viable options on the ballot.  Mike Bloomberg may be able to afford the Democratic Party, but we shouldn't sell it to him.