Maybe I'm Wrong About Bloomberg

As always, I refer you to the Times. Michael Bloomberg had this to say regarding the circumstances under which he would consider running for president:

If everyone in the world was dead and I was the only one alive? Sure.

I'm questioning myself and my assertion that Bloomberg will run in 2008. This is a very powerful thing to say, and something that will be difficult to explain a few months down the road. Other candidates have said things like "I am not thinking about a presidential campaign at this time," but this seems pretty frank, and reporters (and bloggers) would have a field day if a few months down the road (with plenty of people still alive and kicking on this earth) Bloomberg announced his candidacy.

However, the claims that Bloomberg's aides are researching the potential for an independent campaign (see the Times, once again) can't be completely unfounded. And indeed, such behind the scenes research (not to mention his recent nation-wide travel) is hard to square with Bloomberg's comments. One reporter confronted him about this apparent contradiction:

A reporter asked if it was appropriate for city employees “to be on the city payroll when they’re spending a good amount of their time” researching ballot access.

The mayor was curt, as he often is when challenged: “If you’d stop asking me about presidential campagins, they wouldn’t be spending their time on them.” He said he did not know of any city-employed lawyers working on ballot access and asserted that there was “no substance to your question.”

Mr. Bloomberg defended his extensive travel around the country, saying that issues like illegal guns and domestic security that are central to New York City are also important national concerns.

So, city employees (i.e. Bloomberg aides) are researching ballot access because reporters keep asking Bloomberg about a possible campaign? Given that Bloomberg is the mayor, it seems that he, and not reporters, would dictate how his own aides spend their time. And he is travelling the country because he wants to make the world a better place? Well, that may be true, but politicians, even when they are sincere about their desire to see America improve, typically want to be rewarded for that sincerity or at least have the ambition to try to be on the forefront of bringing about those changes.

So, I don't know what to think these days. Michael Bloomberg, you are a man of mystery.

Michael Bloomberg is Now Officially an Independent

Once again, I refer you to the New York Times. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg released this statement:

I have filed papers with the New York City Board of Elections to change my status as a voter and register as unaffiliated with any political party. Although my plans for the future haven’t changed, I believe this brings my affiliation into alignment with how I have led and will continue to lead our city.

A nonpartisan approach has worked wonders in New York: we’ve balanced budgets, grown our economy, improved public health, reformed the school system and made the nation’s safest city even safer.

We have achieved real progress by overcoming the partisanship that too often puts narrow interests above the common good. As a political independent, I will continue to work with those in all political parties to find common ground, to put partisanship aside and to achieve real solutions to the challenges we face.

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. Working together, there’s no limit to what we can do.

This fully convinces me that Bloomberg will indeed run for President as an Independent in 2008. The last three paragraphs sound more like a presidential candidate's stump speech than a simple announcement of a change in party affiliation. Especially when he says "any successful elected executive knows that real results are more important than partisan battles." This sounds like an attack on the relationship between the Bush Administration and the Democratic leadership in Congress. And it suggests that it will take an independent as President (or as the Chief "elected executive") to move beyond this sort of stalemate. And "there's no limit to what we can do?" That sounds like the kind of phony optimism you'd hear Mitt spouting at one of his campaign rallies.

Why would a mayor, two years into his second term, up and change parties? For symbolic reasons? I doubt it. This seems more like Fred Thompson's "testing the waters" BS than anything else. I imagine he will announce an Independent candidacy for President within the next few months. And while I don't think he has any chance at winning, I think it's safe to assume that he would have the best chance of any third party candidate since Ross Perot.

UPDATE: Jake Trapper over at Political Punch cites a relevant quote from Michael Bloomberg:

I have no plans to announce a candidacy because I plan to be mayor for the next nine hundred and twenty six days.

I feel like we've heard things very similar to that from now-announced candidates in the past. So, take from that what you will.

Hagel "Not Happy" with the Republican Party

The Times has a brief but interesting article about Senator Chuck Hagel's feelings about his own party. He said that the party has “been hijacked by a group of single-minded, almost isolationist insulationists, power-projectors.” He went on to say, "“I am not happy with the Republican Party today. It has drifted from the party of Eisenhower, of Goldwater, of Reagan, the party that I joined. It isn’t the same party.” Interestingly, he said that a "credible third-party candidate" running for president would benefit the United States. He has been considering a run for president for a while now, so this adds an interesting wrinkle. If he does decide to run, will it be as a Republican or an Independent? I couldn't imagine he would run as a Republican. Insulting your own party is no way to win a primary election. An independent run by Hagel (a Hagel-Bloomberg ticket, perhaps?) would make for an interesting election. Like Hagel said, “The system needs to be shaken up.”

A Thought Experiment, Part III (the Parties of the Right)

(In this thought experiment, I am imagining what the American political landscape would look like if America had some form of proportional representation, allowing third parties to flourish. Click here for a full explanation; click here for the parties of the left.)

Here are the parties of the right. The old fault line between libertarians and social conservatives will finally crack. The libertarians will flourish in their own party, while the social conservatives will divide themselves into economic liberals (concerned with the environment and poverty as well as abortion) and Christianists obsessed with "family values" issues. A strong anti-immigration party could surprise the political establishment. Meanwhile, country-club Republicans will be relieved to be rid of the more embarrassing elements of the old Republican coalition.

THE RIGHT:

Libertarian

Archetypical members: Ron Paul, Milton Friedman.

Base of support: Middle-to-upper-middle-class, college-educated voters. Strongest in the Mountain West and New Hampshire.

Policies: Libertarian (laissez-faire economics combined with social liberalism.)
Comments: The libertarian party, while popular among the educated classes, would probably have a vote ceiling of 10-15%, due to controversial policies like the flat tax and the legalization of marijuana. Would hope to prove wrong the old adage that “there are no poor libertarians.”

Grand Old Party

Archetypical members: Rudy Giuliani, John McCain.

Base of Support: Country-club Republicans, pro-war voters.

Policies: Hawkish, pro-business, socially moderate.

Comments: Intriguing possibility of coalition with New Democrats, if differences in foreign policy could be resolved.

America First

Archetypical members: Pat Buchanan, Tom Tancredo.

Base of support: Talk-radio listeners, subscribers to The American Conservative.

Policies: Anti-immigrant.

Comments: Shunned by other parties on the right, could shock the political establishment with a National Front-style electoral surge.

Compassionate Conservatives

Archetypical member: David Kuo.

Base of Support: Christian suburban and exurban voters.

Policies: Socially conservative, environmentalist, redistributionist, anti-abortion.

Comments: Economically liberal, socially conservative voters find their home. Strong supporters of faith-based initiatives. Could work with Greens and Social Democrats on a variety of issues.

New Moral Majority

Archetypical member: Pat Robertson.

Base of support: Southern, exurban Christian voters.

Policies: Socially conservative, paternalistic. Anti-gay rights, anti-abortion, anti-evolution, anti-birth control.

Comments: The party of "family values."

A Thought Experiment, Part II (the Parties of the Left)

(See here for a full explanation of this thought experiment. Basically, I'm imagining what the political landscape would look like if America had some form of proportional representation, allowing third parties to flourish.)

Here are the parties of the left. I am assuming that the tension between free-traders and protectionist Democrats (and, more generally, between New Democrats and traditional Democrats) will break the party in two. These two successor parties will garner the majority of votes on the left but will be joined by a strengthened Green Party and a small but vocal Black Congressional Caucus.

New Democrats

Archetypical members: Bill & Hillary Clinton.

Base of support: Middle-class suburban voters, voters with college degrees.

Policies: Neoliberal economic policies such as a balanced budget and free trade, combined with social liberalism.

Comments: The New Democrats, masters of triangulation, could conceivably enter into coalitions with parties on the right if the need arose.

Social Democrats

Archetypical member: John Edwards.

Base of support: Labor unions, working class, minorities, the religious left. Strongest in industrial states that suffer from the negative effects of globalization.

Policies: Redistributionist economic policies, economic protectionism

Comments: Very similar to European social democratic parties.

Green

Archetypical member: Ralph Nader.

Base of support: Affluent suburban voters.

Policies: Environmental, dovish.

Comments: The Green Party could draw a surprisingly large percentage of votes. The current Green Party manages to win 4-5% of the votes even in the current system, which makes voting Green counterproductive. It is not hard to imagine the Greens gaining 10-15% of the votes in a proportional system. Its appeal might weaken as other parties adopt environmentalist positions in the face of global warming.

Congressional Black Caucus

Archetypical members: Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson.

Base of support: African-American voters. Strongest support in inner cities.

Policies: Redistributionist economic policies, economic protectionism, support for affirmative action and education reform. Moderate/conservative on social issues like gay marriage.

Comments: The Congressional Black Caucus would probably focus on a few key issues and enter into coalitions with the Social Democrats. It would struggle to take middle-class African-Americans away from New Democrats and Social Democrats.

One thought experiment, coming up

How much does the American political system discourage the rise of third parties? When a third party gains votes, it actively helps politicians on the opposite end of the spectrum. Bill Clinton beat George Bush with the help of Ross Perot, and George W. Bush squeaked out a victory over Al Gore by a margin in Florida that was much smaller than the number of votes gained by Green Party candidate Ralph Nader. The same effect occurs in Senate and House races. The institutional third-party disadvantage forces politicians with disparate views to gather together in the two big-tent parties, Republican and Democratic. Christianists like James Dobson are grouped together with die-hard libertarians like Ron Paul, and doves like Dennis Kucinich are seated next to uber-hawks like Joe Lieberman. Freed from the constraints of our current system, these people would doubtlessly reorder themselves into a more logical system.

I'd like to conduct a little thought-experiment and imagine what the nation's political landscape would look like if the United States used a system of proportional representation. On Sunday I'll post a prediction of what I think the left wing of the political spectrum would look like, and on Monday I'll post the right side. (Saturday will be reserved for packing and driving home from college- the semester is over!)

How to Make Third Parties Viable

Fz has a good post up about third parties. I'd like to add that a really good way to increase the power of third parties would be to have all or part of the Congress elected by proportional representation. (See here for a good explanation of PR). This would virtually eliminate the concern about wasted votes that derails third parties today. My favorite version of such a plan, proposed to me by a professor, would retain the current system for the Senate but elect the House of Representatives in a national PR election. The change in the House would allow the rise of third parties, while Senators could continue to represent the interests of the individual states.

On Third Parties and Polling

In a recent Rasmussen Reports poll, 58% of respondents said that it would be good for the United States if there were a truly competitive third party. Only 23% said no.

Here we see a perfect example of the inherent flaw in polling. Polling is hypothetical. If we asked, for instance, "would you consider voting third party in 2008?" I guarantee that we would not see 58% of respondents saying "yes." And on Election Day, I guarantee that we'd see an even fewer amount of people actually following through. So, this poll would lead us to believe that 58% of Americans support the notion of a legitimate third party. However, I think it is fair to assume that they would not support an "illegitimate" third party (e.g. the Green Party, the Constitution Party, etc.). However, the only way for a third party to become legitimate is by gaining more supporters. And that's the problem with building third parties. No one wants to support a loser. I'm one of those people. Despite the fact that I may agree with Ralph Nader on many things, I would more readily vote Republican than vote Green.

So, in other words, people want an established third party, but do not want to work to establish a third party. How can we fix this? Well, first of all, the image of the third party has to change. We envision all of the wackos whose only goals are to legalize marijuana or to ban sodomy. But, we should look to Joe Lieberman. The only way a third party will be effective is if it is moderate. A liberal third party simply pulls votes away from Democrats, letting the Republicans win (remember 2000?), and a conservative third party would pull votes away from Republicans, letting the Democrats win. So, we need a moderate third party, pulling votes away from both parties, allowing itself to win.

Easier said than done, of course. But, I think Lieberman's victory last November might be cause for optimism. Seeing moderate politicians bite the dust in favor of ideologues is sad, even when I agree more with the ideologues. The moderate Democrat and the moderate Republican are dying breeds. Lieberman had to go independent, Lincoln Chafee lost his seat, in 2004 Arlen Specter faced an extremely close primary fight. I could probably count the number of moderates in the Senate on my two hands.

And that's absurd. Americans are a moderate bunch, but the two party system caters to ideologues. We desperately need a moderate third party to ease the constant political stalemate in Washington and to bring more rationality to our government. I think a Bloomberg independent run in 2008 might spice things up a bit. I don't think he'd win, but we need more moderates running as independents to get the American public used to the notion that independent doesn't mean crazy.

Don't get me wrong; I'm registered Democrat, and I'll probably always vote Democrat, but I think that a moderate third party (regardless of how I vote) would benefit our political system greatly. Of course, the electoral college would need some reworking (run-off elections?), but we can deal with that later.