Bloomberg and "Post-Partisanship"

Posted 34 weeks 3 days ago by Ben

Joel has some astute observations about this Mike Bloomberg ... what would you call it? Phenomenon? Boomlet? Media-generated apparition? I really don't know. But I was struck in particular by his last point:

Ralph Nader made a big dent in the 2000 election on a platform that suggested Democrats and Republicans were too much alike. (And Steve Clemons points out there's still such a sentiment out there, calling for a "dissident ticket.") Bloomberg would be running on the exact opposite belief.

Ah, yes, post-partisanship. I actually wrote an editorial for the Press-Enterprise extolling Arnold Schwarzenegger's efforts to overcome the deep partisan divide in Sacramento. (I couldn't find a link -- probably just as well.) Oh, how naive we were! Remember how a few months ago, a grinning Bloomberg appeared on the cover of Time magazine with a beaming Arnold Schwarzenegger? Michael Grunwald's story, "The New Action Heroes", painted a portrait of two politicians fed up with gridlock and inefficiency from the federal government. These guys were going to make things happen.

In practice, however, post-partisanship is mostly warmed over liberalism. What tops the Bloomberg-Schwarzenegger agenda? Climate change, health care reform, and gun control -- regulation-heavy policies that few conservatives or Republicans could ever enthusiastically support.

And "post-partisanship" often vanishes when genuine partisan interests are at stake. In California, Schwarzenegger tried in vain to pair a redistricting reform initiative with a ballot measure that would alter term-limits, allowing legislators to serve up to 12 years in one house. The term-limits measure, which would extend the terms of sitting lawmakers, made it on to the February ballot. The redistricting initiative, which would actually make elections competitive in ossified, gerrymandered districts, did not.

So where does all this leave us with Mike Bloomberg's quest for higher office? I just don't see the billionaire catching on with voters -- certainly not with Republicans, and probably not with Democrats who have a field of their own to sort through. Bloomberg might make for some interesting debates, but once people realize what he's selling, he will fade from the scene.

I actually think, though, that there's probably less appetite for a third-party candidate now than there's ever been. Republicans think Perot gave the White House to Clinton; Dems think Nader gave it to Bush. At this point, everybody has a pretty clear understanding of the stakes involved ... despite the niche in the middle I think Bloomberg thinks he's identified, I think the only folks who will be voting third-party are the really disaffected voters. And they'll know exactly what they're doing.

redblueamerica.com