Wednesday, June 20, 2007

A BLOOMBERG CANDIDACY




While he's still denying it, the NYTimes makes it clear that Bloomberg's 'aides' are feeling out the possibility of a national campaign. Bloomberg's disavowal of the GOP is no casual affair, and the prospect of yet another prominent New Yorker entering the presidential race fills this ambivalent blogger with a terrible mixture of glee and trepidation.

The Glee: Could this be the most exciting presidential election in the history of our country? I'd be interested if anyone could name another election year when this much star power and potential history making was on display for the public. Add Bloomberg to the list of groudbreaking firsts in this race: the first woman, the first African American, the first Mormon, a mayor of a city that was attacked by terrorists, and the possibility of a former VP who had an election stolen from him and we've just scratched the surface of the multitude of great stories emerging in this year's competition. And we haven't even hit the primaries yet! With all these fascinating personalities in play it'll be a political junkie's dream watching all the duels, parries, calibrations, disasters and surprises unfold.

The New York Interlude: Which face of New York will Americans prefer? Giuliani? Clinton? Bloomberg? None of the above? Has New York become so symbolically important to the country because of 9/11 that it can viably field so many candidates? Why are so many Americans not from New York eager to exploit its hurt for their own political gain? I met some folks from Iowa in Colorado at my brother's graduation and they were enamored with Giuliani while at the same time holding New York in a kind of cultural contempt. Why do so many Republicans in the middle and south of the nation like a man from a city and state they despise? I would argue because Giuliani has found a way to patriotically hate New York. We can vote for him because he'll kill terrorists, even if we didn't mind so much who the terrorists killed the last time they were here. Don't forget, Giuliani's line on the campaign trail is something like, 'if I could get that lunatic liberal bastion of AIDS and welfare under control, think of what I could do for the country'. He capitalizes on the loathing most of the US has for the city while simultaneously galvanizing anger and fear in the electorate at the fact that "America" (not so much "New York" when you really think about it) was attacked. The strategy is paradoxical but obviously effective. You get votes by hating and loving New York in the right proportion at the same time. But I digress.

The Trepidation: I think you could also argue that this is one of the most important elections ever as well. America's moral standing in the world is profoundly tarnished and our ability to project military power mightily weakened. Environmental disaster looms, the terrorist threat has been exacerbated, and our health care system is on life support. Bloomberg entering the race will make it difficult for the Democrats to win the White House. He never was a real Republican, and his stances on the environment, gun control, gays and public health make him palatable only to liberals, meaning his independent run would siphon votes away from Democrats and pave the way for a GOP victory the same way Perot enabled a non-majority Clinton victory in '92. Look for Bloomberg, should he decide to run, to create the Nader effect, whereby he steals say, 2-4% of the overall vote and allows Giuliani to take the White House. This election is too important and while I love Mayor Mike and I think his addition to the race would diversify and excite the '08 election, it might be in all of our interests if he sits this one out.

Saturday, June 9, 2007

LOVE THY ENEMY



It's clear that the kind of hard right politics practiced by Bush no longer enjoy the wide support we saw after 9/11. No longer able to wrap the flag around issues such as the Patriot Act and No Child Left Behind, and after suffering several major legislative defeats (though one of them, immigration, was distinctly not a part of the typical right agenda), Bush's influence, his neocon foreign policy, and his domestic usurping of legislative and judicial power are on the wane. Bush's poll numbers are a joke and, according to many the president has officially entered the lame-duck phase of his tenure in office. Whither the future of the Republican Party?

It's clear that the GOP, at least for this election cycle, is coalescing around centrist candidates like Rudy Giuliani and John McCain. On the state level, we see policy and attitudinal similarities with the enormously popular 'progressive' Republicans like governor Schwarzenegger who, like Giuliani at least, support the environment, gay rights, the right to abortion, etc. These issues, of course, would normally have been toxic to a conservative electorate, but not so much anymore. Schwarzenegger's popularity has been mentioned, Giuliani is the current front runner for the Republican nomination, and in 2004 these 'centrist' politicians were trotted out as the new face of the GOP at the Republican convention in New York, which suggests that senior Republican leadership realizes an essential move to the left is necessary to maintain conservative relevancy.

Here's my thought experiment/question: Should democrats who have an interest in 'reforming the enemy' support these centrist candidates in an effort to change the Republican party? Wouldn't it be important for the Republican leadership to have their tack to the left reinforced and supported by another term in the White House? Wouldn't this permanently transform the Republican Party, reform them, and put them on a course to eventually accept the permanency of Roe v Wade, the essential moral justness of gay marriage, and a humbler (and more traditional) foreign policy? It's conceivable that if the Republican party doesn't win this cycle they will return to the bosom and succor of typical right wing ideology and an important opportunity will have been missed. Would a vote for Giuliani be a vote for a larger kind of electoral liberalism where future debates between liberals and conservatives wouldn't be about Creationism vs. Evolution, or Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice, but instead about Civic Unions vs. Full Marriage for gay people, or Comprehensive Immigration vs. Limited Immigration Reform, or Privatized Health Care Reform vs. a Single Payer System. Wouldn't the possibility for these dramatically less polarizing national arguments represent a massive ideological shift to the left we liberals would love to see and wouldn't it be great for the overall welfare of the country? Would a true liberal vote for the GOP in '08?