Bloomberg and Obama
Among political operatives there’s a lot of talk about the idea that in the wake of Michael Bloomberg’s surprisingly narrow re-election the White House blew an opportunity to intervene in the race on behalf of Democratic City Comptroller Bill Thompson and pick up a win. Ben Smith writes that the outcome is “a profound embarrassment for a Democratic establishment – from the White House on down — that abandoned his rival, City Comptroller Bill Thompson, as a hopeless loser.”
I think it’s at least worth considering the possibility that this tactics-tinged lens is the wrong way to look at things. What if Obama just preferred Bloomberg on the merits, but felt that political considerations compelled him to offer nominal support for the official Democratic nominee? After all, what are the issues on which Obama’s positions are more closely aligned with Thompson than with Bloomberg?
I can name a few on which Obama and Bloomberg are in sync. For starters, education. Obama and Arne Duncan are clearly in the “education reform” camp of the intra-Democratic split, pushing accountability and charter schools. Today Obama will be touting education reform in Madison, Wisconsin talking up the $4.35-billion Race to the Top (RTTT) fund that was included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. This is an agenda totally in line with what Bloomberg and Joel Klein have been doing in New York, and the general fear among reformers has been that absent Bloomberg NYC education policy will be made by the United Federation of Teachers. Similarly, on transportation Obama and Secretary Ray LaHood have been infuriating George Will by pushing transit, walking, and bicycles. You never find an “anti-transit” politician as such in New York, but the Bloomberg administration’s push for congestion pricing and spree of bike lane construction have turned Transportation Commissioner Jeanette Sadik-Khan into a hero of transportation reform. Thompson, by contrast, ending his campaign rallying against Bus Rapid Transit.
Are there some clear examples of urban policy issues on which Obama is pushing an agenda that’s at odds with Bloomberg?
38 Responses to “Bloomberg and Obama”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 4th, 2009 at 10:50 am
I think you missed their greatest similarity:
They both rely on Wall Street for the vast majority of their funds.
Bloomberg just does this in a far more open, incorporated manner.
Oh, wait, I’m sorry, their policy visions are the same.
Give me a fucking break.
November 4th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Don’t people understand that Bloomberg IS a Democrat. He has been all his life, just switching conveniently to run for office and avoid primaries.
November 4th, 2009 at 10:53 am
Don’t people understand that Bloomberg IS a Democrat. He has been all his life, just switching conveniently to run for office and avoid primaries.
And that is, of course, the other reason.
November 4th, 2009 at 10:55 am
Is there any reason you’re ignoring gun control? Finding a way to continue the status quo on urban gun control (let alone increasing restrictions) once Heller gets incorporated against the States will be very important. Building public support for such a move will be vital; Bloomberg’s shown that he’s willing to be the face and the wallet behind the cause.
November 4th, 2009 at 10:55 am
the general fear among reformers has been that absent Bloomberg NYC education policy will be made by the United Federation of Teachers.
Yeah, we should all be petrified of the day education policy is made by teachers instead of billionaire CEO’s who declare themselves mayor for life.
November 4th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Also, Bloomberg and Obama are both technocrats first before they’re Democrats or Republicans or whatever. Sort of the whole point of talking about getting beyond divisions and finding common ground. Of course when people have different interpretations of the same set of facts this is unrealistic. Worked to some degree in NYC but everyone else is behind that curve.
November 4th, 2009 at 10:59 am
Building public support for such a move will be vital; Bloomberg’s shown that he’s willing to be the face and the wallet behind the cause.
Bloomberg is an authoritarian. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is utterly irrelevant to one such as he what actual law says. He’s going to order the NYPD to obliterate anyone trying to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights in the city no matter what Heller does.
And frankly, I don’t think that’s that bad of a thing for my old neighborhood. Whereas in the Chicago I now reside, I cannot wait for Heller to overturn the current legislation.
This city is ridiculously dangerous, and the CPD is absolutely fucking incompetent.
November 4th, 2009 at 11:00 am
Just to clarify:
Joel Klein = NYC Board of Ed Chancellor
Joe Klein = Centrist and occasionally astute Time columnist
November 4th, 2009 at 11:04 am
Yeah, Obama was going to campaign for a mayor? It’s NYC, but really: a mayor?
November 4th, 2009 at 11:07 am
President Obama and White House thinking so much in national interest – implicitly backing Bloomberg? That is hard to believe.
No doubt Bloomberg is the most capable here and rather than he needs the third term, it is NY City which needs it.
But Obama to think so loudly and working on that? I am not yet ready to appropriate that much good will to this White House. This White House is only now coming out of last year’s election mode to think in more broader national themes. I do not think they are there yet.
November 4th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Maybe I’m just looking for a silver lining here, but clearly, the Democratic Party in NYC has some shit to work out. Don’t have much hope that they will, since the power brokers, by and large, seem content with their little fiefdoms, but in the meantime, better that the rich jerk should own the mess his buds down on Wall Street made, no?
I could see Obama thinking this. I could also see Obama thinking “Bloomberg’s polling 15 points ahead and the Democrat, whatsisname, is toast, so I’m not going to go all out for him.”
NYC Dems have two big problems: First, their leadership. Second, the perception that they can’t govern, and that Giuliani and Bloomberg came in and cleaned up their mess. Well, I predict that this perception will diminish muchly over Bloomberg’s third term.
November 4th, 2009 at 11:11 am
Few people who have been involved in New York City politics is under any illusion that Bloomberg is a Democrat. Or a Republican. Or has any interest in the city outside of Lower Manhattan. Or gives the slightest attention to basic civil liberties or the fate of anyone who makes under $100K a year. It makes me crazy when pundits from outside of New York think of Bloomberg as a Democrat. He’s not.
November 4th, 2009 at 11:13 am
Isn’t Bloomberg a big (maybe one of the biggest) financial supporters of the NYS Republican Party? I would also recommend that anyone interested in school reform policy in NYC also follow some of Wayne Barrett’s reporting in the Voice (he may be a bit hysterical, but he does raise some important questions w/r/t the conventional wisdom on Bloomberg (i.e., that he represents quasi-progressive, mavericky technocratic competence).
Further, I think that the ‘merits’ are really complicated on the state/local election level, and Obama probably made the right choice in being a bit hands-off.
November 4th, 2009 at 11:13 am
Yes. I’m a Democrat, I voted for Bloomberg yesterday, and I don’t really think Obama’s involvement would have done anything other than cause some momentary confusion. Bloomberg basically is a technocratic Democrat, and it’s a fairly appealing formula for NYC mayor. I know that a lot of people get worked up into a spittle-flecked lather (Greg, for example, might do well to take a walk and get some air) over the term limit thing, but by NY abuse-of-power standards, this seems like pretty small beer.
November 4th, 2009 at 11:13 am
Second, the perception that they can’t govern, and that Giuliani and Bloomberg came in and cleaned up their mess. Well, I predict that this perception will diminish muchly over Bloomberg’s third term.
Bloomberg will be far, far more ruthless and brutal than Giuliani *ever* was. And he will be likely applauded for it.
That perception isn’t going anywhere.
November 4th, 2009 at 11:15 am
I know that a lot of people get worked up into a spittle-flecked lather (Greg, for example, might do well to take a walk and get some air) over the term limit thing, but by NY abuse-of-power standards, this seems like pretty small beer.
Hey, Adam, I hope you have a fun time fucking yourself.
My entire family voted for Mayor Mike, and I would have as well, had I been back home.
Or did you miss the point above where I said above that Bloomberg’s authoritarianism is not precisely a good thing? I don’t want the city to go back to the 70s and the 80s.
November 4th, 2009 at 11:16 am
meant: *not precisely a bad thing*
Shit, changes the entire meaning of my post
November 4th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Is there actually a lot of talk about this, or is there just one stupid politico article? I think everyone knows Obama <3s Bloomberg.
November 4th, 2009 at 11:29 am
Bloomberg basically is a technocratic Democrat
…. with a multi-billion dollar political machine. I would have thought that the old myth of an independently wealthy politician being independent of the power structure would have died with the term limits thing. Bloomberg is his own power structure; the reason that most of the would-be institutional opposition stayed quiet was because they either were bought or hope to be bought in the next term.
Look at Corzine. He was supposed to be the independent, reforming, liberal, highly competent money man when he entered the NJ political scene in 1999. But what exactly has the ten-year reign of Corzine’s money in NJ politics accomplished?
Now I think Bloomberg’s record is better than Corzine’s, and I agree with the thrust of Yglesias’ argument that it certainly isn’t the case that Obama frittered away some sort of opportunity to take down Bloomberg. But Bloomberg is a power-hungry authoritarian who uses a shitload of money to replace (ineffectively) political skill.
November 4th, 2009 at 11:32 am
So.. Matt’s argument is “Obama’s not stupid. He’s just a traitor!”
I’m not sure who, other than the upper-class twits who frequent this board, will actually decide that this is a more positive reading of the situation.
We’ll remember this when you’re arguing that we HAVE to vote for Obama no matter how far away he is from us politically because HE’S A DEMOCRAT!!1!!11!!
November 4th, 2009 at 11:33 am
That perception isn’t going anywhere.
It’s true that we’re a long ways from the ’70s, when deindustrialization and other cultural and demographic convulsions wrought wrenching pain for the city. But Giuliani and Bloomberg benefited from a series of happily-timed bubbles. Maybe they’ll keep the big casino downtown humming along, paying masters of the universe multi-million dollar bonuses so their whims can support a retail and service economy, but it will never again be what it was, and unemployment’s up around 10%, last I checked. I don’t really see the myth of the great white father/supermanager surviving that.
November 4th, 2009 at 11:39 am
“Or gives the slightest attention to basic civil liberties or the fate of anyone who makes under $100K a year.”
Then it must be some sort of paradox that unsheltered homelessness has declined 50% in 5 years and sheltered homelessness reversed its upward trend dramatically upon Bloomberg’s election.
And no, a quip about Bloomberg paying the homeless to leave town doesn’t explain this success away.
November 4th, 2009 at 11:47 am
Duh, Obama likes Bloomberg. And why the heck would Obama get involved in a race where ZERO Democratic power brokers in NYC were involved?
Beyond tactics, what’s the strategy here? This was a race about nothing. What, exactly, was Thompson promising to do differently from Bloomberg? Obama is going to take on a billionaire and ask his donors for money so he can back the loser in a race in support of what? Partisanship? Term limits?
Local NYC power brokers should be kicking themselves that they didn’t decide to be the guy running the Thompson campaign. The horrific economy meant people were going to send bloomberg a message. There was a path for somebody to make this shocking 50-46 outcome a demonstration of their organization’s power and/or their issue’s resonance. It wasn’t an easy path, but it was there. But everybody was happy in their fiefdom, nobody was willing to take on the risk, so nobody got the reward.
But expecting Obama to take on this role is just stupid. He wins by winning in DC. If power brokers in NYC with a lot more to gain and less to lose couldn’t be bothered with this race, it’s utterly lunatic to expect Obama would bother.
November 4th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Certainly Matt’s right about this – in fact, I’d have thought this was an obvious fact if not for that poorly thought out Politico article (are there any other kinds?)
In any case, I think it’s becoming more and more clear that Obama is (like Bloomberg) a Progressive, but not a Liberal (again, like Bloomberg). He clearly aims for Progressive ends, but is very comfortable using market-based “nudges” to achieve these ends, and less comfortable using traditional Liberal institutions (be they public employee unions or new government agencies).
Frankly, I like this approach a lot, but I can see why it drives some old-school Liberals nuts – they want the same ends but can only recognize CHANGE if it comes in the form of new means.
November 4th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Zach, if he’s so unambigiously awesome, why did he almost lose to someone who barely campaigned and had no backing from the party?
I’d wager a whole lot of people must disagree with you, or last night wouldn’t have happened.
November 4th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Because he cheated to get a third term. I have no clue how worthwhile the Dem candidate was, but I probably would’ve voted against him on those grounds alone. I like him because he has his priorities in order, but I think he’d do just as well outside of NYC.
November 4th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Jess, gee. Good luck winnin those elections without us.
A smarter person knows how coalitions work. Saying “Sure, this faction will be angry. Fuck em!” is pretty much how we got GWB in the first place.
It’s fucking hilarious that you think “clintonism” means “Change”. I remember us having the option of electing a Clinton. I remember most of us turning that option down.
November 4th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Zach, probably. But the only thing you can actualy take away for sure from that election is that 46% of the people didn’t want to him to be mayor anymore.
Bloomberg would be massacred anywhere outside of NYC. You see this a lot from NYC types, they clearly have no clue just how… unique NYC really is. There’s a reason it’s politicians generally fail everywhere else. They have a certain attitude that New Yorkers like, but that makes everyone else think “god, what a fucking asshole”. Bloomberg won’t run for President or Governor for a reason.
November 4th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
But the only thing you can actualy take away for sure from that election is that 46% of the people didn’t want to him to be mayor anymore.
46% of the people who VOTED, voted against him. Turnout was historically low. In a race no one thought was competitive, people angry with the incumbent are disproportionately likely to turn out.
November 4th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
@soullite – No doubt Bloomberg wouldn’t have much luck in electoral politics; I’m talking about appointed positions or in private life.
November 4th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
sometimes people just like each other regardless of party or ideology.
Bloomberg, like obama, is ldeology free. While Obama agrees mostly with progressive ideas, he is not a live and die by ideology kind.
And he is receptive to ideas in general not really caring what side they are from. He just wants stuff to work.
That is how Bloomberg is as far as I can tell.
We do need less ideology in this country and more acceptance of just plain good ideas.
November 4th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Umm..
Who cares about the mayor of NYC? City elections are rarely meddled with by national politicians, even NYC. Repealing term limits is a scumbag thing to do tho. They exist for a reason, and our government would be much better off if they were expanded to more positions. I can think of a conn senator who has lasted far past his expiration date, for example (and would kill for a 2 term limit for Texas gov so Perry and his hair would be term limited).
November 4th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Yeah, Obama was going to campaign for a mayor? It’s NYC, but really: a mayor?
There are more people in New York City (just the city limits, not the metro area or anything) than in the states of Hawaii, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, North and South Dakota, Alaska, Vermont, and Wyoming.
Combined.
If NYC was a state, it would rank 12th in state populations, between, um, New Jersey and Virginia. Actually. (The rest of the state with the city subtracted would stay in the top 10.)
The mayor of NYC is responsible for a government that serves more people than the governor of Virginia – and again, that’s just counting the city limits, not the metro area or people who commute into the city but live outside. (Although, admittedly, some responsibilities are shared with NY State government.)
There are more people that live in New York City (again, just the city limits) than live in Austria or Denmark.
It really is a pretty damn important office.
November 4th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Moreover, to add to what chris said, a few thousand guys in lower Manhattan and Midtown can pretty much destroy the world economy.
November 4th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
What a concept they all share: ignore the opinions of the people who actually know what goes on in the classroom. In fact, whatever they think, do the opposite. Why? Because they had the audacity to form a union.
Obviously, the problems in the schools arise from the fact that the teachers don’t try hard enough. Why don’t they try hard enough? Because they can’t compete on salary — disregarding, of course, the fact that most of them did not go into the field for the chance to earn high incomes.
Very progressive. Very technocratic, too.
November 4th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
I wanted Thompson to win and immediately dismantle the fucking idiotic 311 system, since it’s been fucking impossible to get services from the city since the advent of 311. Nice going, dipshit, sticking a layer of ill-trained bureaucrats between residents and the agencies that are supposed to serve them. Fuck Bloomberg and his 311. Techno-SPLAT I would say.
November 5th, 2009 at 12:09 am
I really liked your post on home financing! if you have more information elsewhere let me know. Please come visit my site Texas TX Phone Directory when you got time.
November 5th, 2009 at 12:10 am
Yeah it is a great and nice article looking forward to have such article it is so useful. Please come visit my site City Guide Baltimore when you got time