Third Term for Bloomberg
Looks like Michael Bloomberg is going to try to get the rule changed to allow him to run for a third term as mayor of New York City. I think Bloomberg’s been a good mayor, but I’m not very familiar with the alternatives so I wouldn’t want to express a view on the underlying merits of re-electing him even if that were the sort of thing that’s allowed on this blog.
But in a broader sense, term limits have never struck me as a policy with an especially strong theoretical or empirical justification. Term limits are more interesting insofar as there’s no duller story in politics than “popular incumbent cruises to re-election” but why shouldn’t popular incumbents cruise to re-election? Term limits for the state legislature haven’t improved governance in California, and I think the country would have been better served in both 2008 and 2000 by a more clear-cut choice about whether or not to continue on the current direction.
UPDATE: As Atrios points out the right way to do this would be to eliminate term limits for your successors rather than for yourself. At a minimum, I’d say it would be strongly preferable to be on record as against term limits before you ever took office.
49 Responses to “Third Term for Bloomberg”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
September 30th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
In fact, one might make a pretty strong argument that term limits have significantly worsened governance in California.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Come to think of it, is anyone going to argue that a third (or fourth) Clinton term would have been worse than the debacle that actually ensued?
September 30th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
I suppose you’d be happy to have Bush running for a 3rd term?
Oh, yeah I forgot. He is!
September 30th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
The Hugo Chavez of Gotham… McCain’s army will invade this rogue city and depose this dictator.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
I think there’s a big difference between term limits for executives and term limits for legislatures, given the ongoing tendency to centralize power in the executive branch.
And having lived in one of NYC’s less-favored boroughs during Bloomberg’s first term, I can say he was a terrible Mayor. He was really just mayor of lower Manhattan.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Term limits might not be necessary if there weren’t so many ways for incumbents to stack the deck for their own reelection. As it is, things like gerrymandering allow a candidate to hold onto power as soon as he gets it. A generally unpopular candidate can hold onto power if he gets to pick who votes for him.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
But in a broader sense, term limits have never struck me as a policy with an especially strong theoretical or empirical justification.
Depends. In the context of the head of state, I think you will find very strong empirical evidence. In the context of the legislature, it’s pretty weak. In the context of a mayor, I think it’s mixed. But Bloomberg’s pretty bad-ass, so why not?
September 30th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
I have always advocated that any change in the rules related to elections, compensation, etc. voted by any politician should apply only to non-incumbents. If Bloomberg wants to run for multiple terms in office after the next election, that’s fine by me. He just can’t stand for the next election. Sorry. The same applies to the NYC council. It was a stupid rule (term limits) when it was implemented, but it is what it is and the voters confirmed they wanted to keep it in place.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Looks like Michael Bloomberg is going to try to get the rule changed to allow him to run for a third term as mayor of New York City
I think it’s bad form to try to get rules changed when they affect you directly. If he wants to change for the next mayor (and run again after that term expires, fine). But a current executive just has too much asymetric power to make it appropriate.
Heck, in the other direction, we let Truman run again as long as wanted and only had the Pres term limit ammendment go into effect with whomever came after.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
I think Bloomberg’s been a good mayor, but I’m very familiar with the alternatives so I wouldn’t want to express a view on the underlying merits of re-electing him even if that were the sort of thing that’s allowed on this blog.
I believe you meant to insert a “not” in there just before “very familiar”?
September 30th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Why shouldn’t billionaires be our “benign” monarchs
And the Bloomberg’s congestion tax was $7 for private limousines and $21 for pickup trucks.
No, thank you Matt, let’s elect an actual democrat this time.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
or what Praha already said (missed it by 3 minutes. Stupid work)
September 30th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
I used to think that. But the older I get the more I see how much energy people in power spend using it to perpetuate their own power. Of course I lived through the Marion Barry years in DC, so I would think that eternal incumbency is a bad thing.
Mayors wield a lot of very tangible executive powers and the temptation has got to be huge to use them to stay in office. And even if the guy in charge has nothing but The Public Good in mind, there’s always a herd of underlings passing out rewards and meting out punishments to worry about. Nope, term limits for executive offices seem like a generally good thing to me.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
but why shouldn’t popular incumbents cruise to re-election?
Incumbent entrenchment effects suggest incumbents will frequently be popular irrespective of their merits?
There’s then a question about whether or not the cost of not allowing good candidates who would win is worth the benefit of getting bad candidates who would win out of office, or whether there are more finely tuned policy tools to do this, but when I see things like Ronald Lauder who sponsored the previous New York tern limit referendums saying that the term limits he supports shouldn’t apply in this case because Bloomberg is good at his job and the economy is in trouble right now, you have to wonder if Lauder gave any thought to this at all before he spent millions of dollars trying to get term limits in place.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
I would like to see him become the Treasury Secretary in an Obama Administration.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
I think Eric (#6) laid his finger on the premise that animates the case for term limits. I think it’s still a valid consideration.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Reagan also would’ve run, and probably won, a third term. Maybe a fourth if they could keep the Alzheimer’s covered up.
More broadly, there’s a game theory problem that term limits solve for legislatures. A district can’t rid of itself of a senior-but-not-great incumbent for great newbie without paying a huge seniority price. Term limits solve that.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
I think Matt has never lived under a corrupt and powerful mayor.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Getting rid of legislative seniority would be better.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
I agree with the suggestions that it’s untoward or unethical for Bloomberg to pursue this change for his own benefit, but that it’s worthwhile on the merits. If perpetual incumbency is the problem, how about two terms on and one term off? That way Clinton could’ve run again in 2004, Bloomberg could run again in 2013, etc. There’s no reason to keep popular politicians out of elected office because they’re too popular, but there should be some measure to temper the accumulation of power.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Matt,
Term-limits proved disastrous in Arkansas, one of the first states to propose them during the 80s/90s craze. The net result, the first full term after being enacted, was that 0 lawyers remained in the governmental body responsible for writing laws. The general impression that was left was that the experienced legislators, with known predilictions and industry-ties, were thrown out in favor of inexperienced big-fish-from-small-towns who were so much more easily influenced by industry lobbyists and whose personal ties to various interest groups was less-known or established.
“The devil you don’t know…” turned out to be the case.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
i think term limits in NY, at least for the council, are a good thing. in a city where there is no oppositional party, it’s tough to knock off an incumbent. i think term limits is one way to counteract that. i do think only 2 terms is not long enough. as far as a citywide office, it may be a little less necessary.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Would Bush have really sought and secured the nomination this year? Not with his 30% approval.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
I’ve never understood why term limits don’t limit consecutive terms. Being termed out every two elections would break up the overwhelming advantage to the incumbent, but being able to run in the next election would allow voters to re-hire savvy popular politicians. The worst case, that two politicians whom the locals like trade a seat back and forth for decades, sounds OK to me. The interruption between terms would still allow access for other voices to break in.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
“And having lived in one of NYC’s less-favored boroughs during Bloomberg’s first term, I can say he was a terrible Mayor. He was really just mayor of lower Manhattan.”
Right on arbitrista. As a Bronxite, I whole-heartedly agree.
Term limits are necessary for the mayor of NYC simply because the power that the mayor wields as compared to the legislature. Ever hear the one about the difference between the NYC Council and a rubber-stamp? A rubber stamp leaves an impression. I know its lame, but its true. The Council has very limited budgetary and law-making authority. Which is probably a good thing if you know some of these people (with some notable exceptions).
That being said, given the financial disaster that may be looming, Bloomie will almost certainly win. PC Kelly won’t run against his boss. Comptroller Thompson would have a small shot, but even he, let alone Weiner or Quinn, cannot match Bloomie on financial issues.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
I seem to remember the last Mayor of New York also tried to finagle his way into a third term. It seems to be a habit.
September 30th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Matt, sadly, people vote for personalities in this country, not policies nor (god forbid) political party agendas. With politics at a local level, most incumbents run uncontested. At all levels of government, term limits enforce the important idea that politics are[is?] not about individuals. Working the levers of government, i.e. the other half of the dichotomy: policy, needs as little influence from outside, distracting politics as possible.
September 30th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Are you people advocating for Bloomberg’s third term crazy????
I remember just after 9/11 Guiliani was pushing for an extension of his term. Sure, people were happy with him at the time, but in the end, wiser heads prevailed. We had an orderly election and transfer of power in New York.
Look, I like Bloomberg, have always had. But as a guy coming from another country, I’ve seen where unrestricted power has destroyed the country over the years.
Bloomberg’s a billionaire, but its obvious that the trappings of mayoral power has corrupted his thinking.
What’s even worse, he’s pushing for the change in the legislative branch (NY City Council), thus generally asking for a few dozen people to overturn the wishes of millions of people.
Mike, say it ain’t so!
September 30th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
It will be interesting to see what the reaction is. People viscerally rejected Rudy’s attempt to do something similar, and that was when he was riding the crest of his Saint 9/11 popularity.
I wouldn’t have any particular issue with changing the law as long as it didn’t apply to any current incumbents. But then, Bloomberg wouldn’t be for that change, would he?
September 30th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Tell me that the knowledge that Bush will be out of office has changed nothing over the last four years.
September 30th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
I had also meant to add one thing to my comment above. The US is filled with many great people. On principle, the loss of a great leader should be easily filled with another great one. I realize this doesn’t always happen. There are some changes in the primary system I would enact that I think would help, but I digress. The point is the same as the one above, politics should be about ideas, not the talking heads spouting those ideas.
September 30th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
I’ll put $10 down right now that Bloomberg doesn’t get his way on this. After all, every time he’s had to do something that involves convincing, rather than ordering, other people to carry out his agenda, he’s failed.
September 30th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Anyone who wants to change the law for his own benefit should automatically be disqualified from doing so. He’s certainly lost my trust with this move.
September 30th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
I think that Paulson should resign immediately and Bloomberg appointed to take his place.
September 30th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
28 + 29: This is nothing like Guliani’s crazy power grab in 2001. He wanted the mayor elect to take the unlawful step of allowing him to stay in power after the election. Here Bloomberg will have to run again.
Looking at the corrupt machine politicians the Democrats in New York City run year after year, I would be more than happy to have Bloomberg run again. If the people of New York are upset about it they can vote for his opponent. He won’t be on either the Democratic or Republican line. And being familiar with the alternatives, I’d like him to run again. None of the potential candidates strike me as serious effective leaders which is what new York is going to need in the coming years.
As for the Outer Boroughs complaints – what problems are you talking about? Is it just congestion pricing? What other “terrible” things has he done to you? And please, please – convince me that Green or Ferrer would have done a better job.
Mike Bloomberg is probably the best candidate for NYC mayor in 2009. He’ll have to prove that in an election. I’ve got no problem with that.
October 1st, 2008 at 12:14 am
Voters already have an effective means of limiting terms, the ballot box.
I can see term limits for an executive. Legislators on the other hand build relationships ( good and bad ones ) over the years. Limiting the terms of legislators leaves control of the government in the hands of unelected lobbyists and civil servants.
October 1st, 2008 at 8:57 am
Term limits are essentially an un-American restriction on the VOTER and his choices as to who represents him.
As has been mentioned, the ballot box is the ultimate (and best) means of limiting terms. Term limits essentially tilt the playing field (even more) in favor of the monied elite. Can the average Joe with a family step out of his career for six to eight years and then just pick up where he left off? No. But it’s no problem for the Mitt Romneys of the world. It makes the prospect of a middle-class citizen committing to public service since they are guaranteed to have to attempt to start their career over when their term/s end. This even if he’s been a wonderful public servant with overwhelming support from his constituency.
The ballot box is the ultimate arbiter of limiting political terms. As it should be.
October 1st, 2008 at 11:34 am
Mayor Mike is a typical Republican, rules are for other people, like the poor or the brown, but not for him. He is a “good man”, he supported term limits “bad guys”. Now, I have always opposed term limits, it was part of the Contract with America, and just a way to get Democrats out of congress, all those phonies went back on their pledge to serve only two terms, but this is a joke.
October 1st, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Matt, I agree that term limits don’t have a very strong theoretical justification. But, in certain situations, they’re necessary in practice.
In 2005 (the most recent election), 43 New York City Council members ran for reelection. 42 won their races. 42 OF 43! The only one who lost was a guy who had been found guilty of sexual harassment.
I realize it’s possible that all 42 of the winning incumbents were doing great jobs, but I think it’s more likely that it’s a combination of structural difficulty and voter apathy.
March 1st, 2009 at 5:21 am
viagra
Great site. Good info
March 12th, 2009 at 9:06 am
Does anyone know where I can find free online grant applications?
March 14th, 2009 at 5:07 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
xanax
March 17th, 2009 at 2:22 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:04 am
tramadol
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:23 am
buy viagra online
Incredible site!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:06 am
Great site. Good info
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:05 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 5:18 am
Incredible site! viagra
April 19th, 2009 at 9:00 am
noXW92 igoqxtaaxprx, [url=http://htsvrgmeruko.com/]htsvrgmeruko[/url], [link=http://zhroixcmtgtj.com/]zhroixcmtgtj[/link], http://totpfvxuhhvs.com/