David Broder -- the high commissioner of Washington punditry and de facto leader of the Bloomberg base -- is feeling the public's "palpable hunger" for leadership:
More than that, there is a palpable hunger among the public for someone who will attack the problems facing the country -- the war in Iraq, immigration, energy, health care -- and not worry about the politics.
But as Ezra Klein points out, "not worry[ing] about the politics" makes no sense:
How do you tackle the country's problems without worrying about the politics? Does running on a third-party ticket obviate the need for Senate approval? For Congressional majorities? Does Bloomberg's $9 billion somehow trigger a filibuster-exception clause?
People don't worry about "the politics" because they enjoy fretting. They worry about the politics because that's what's keeping them from attacking the problems facing the country. Broder happens to have picked the four policy areas Democrats have the clearest, most expansive plans on, but they can't implement them because they can't get to 60 votes in the Senate, or force Bush's signature. That's why "the politics" matter.
Or as Matthew Yglesias puts it:
If only, instead of the party that's been governing the country for the past six years, there was some kind of second major party whose elected officials supported substantial policy shifts on Iraq, immigration, energy, and health care. Wouldn't that be great?
Jonathan Chait nails the larger problem with the Broderesque perspective on Bloomberg in a must-read TNR column:
"Any successful elected executive knows that real results are more important than partisan battles and that good ideas should take precedence over rigid adherence to any particular political ideology." So declared New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg upon renouncing his membership in the GOP last week. The problem, of course, is that people don't agree on what "real results" or "good ideas" are. Cutting taxes? Raising taxes? Funding stem-cell research? Banning stem-cell research? This is exactly why we have partisan battles in the first place.
You would think that anybody who failed to grasp this would be urged to study a high school civics textbook. Instead, Bloomberg is being urged to run for president and lauded for his statesmanship.
Bloomberg has thus become the most prominent example of what you could call partisanship scolds. These are people who believe that disagreement is the central problem in U.S. politics, that both parties are to blame in equal measure, and that rejecting party ties or ideology is synonymous with the demonstration of virtue. While partisanship scolds believe that they stand in bold contrast to Washington, they are probably more heavily represented among the Beltway elite than any other demographic.
The official lobby of the partisanship scolds is a group called "Unity '08"--a collection of graying eminences from both parties who are calling for a bipartisan presidential ticket, perhaps led by Bloomberg. Their rhetoric appears to be targeted at people who enjoy kittens, rainbows, and David Broder columns. Specifically, Unity '08 says its ticket will run on "ideas and traditions which unite and empower us as individuals and as a people."
Well, that's nice. Unfortunately, when the partisanship scolds get a little more specific, things tend to break down.
(Newsday also has an op-ed telling readers not to believe the third party hype.)
Comments