What's It All About?

As usual with calls for less partisanship and more moderation, the striking thing about this new initiative is its vacuousness. There are two kinds of thing a centrist movement might reasonably stand for. One would be a middle-ground approach to issues -- "Democrats think federal revenues should be at X percent of GDP, Republicans think it should be at Y percent, but we say it should be at (X+Y)/2 percent of GDP." Another would be to hold a mish-mash of left-wing positions on some issues, and right-wing positions on others "we should reduce carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050 through a 100 percent auction of tradable emissions permits and we should privatize Social Security." One might, of course, also have a combination of the two sorts of things.

So what do we hear?

Well, according to Stu Loesser, press secretary for Michael Bloomberg, "As mayor, he has seen far too often how hyperpartisanship in Washington has gotten in the way of making progress on a host of issues." Which issues? And what would constitute progress on them? Loesser doesn't say. Similarly, David Boren says that "Our hope is that the candidates will respond with their own specific ideas about how to pull the country together, not just aim at getting out their own polarized base." This, though, is just talk about political strategies. And if both countries put forward policies designed to appeal to the median voter, the result will be . . . polarization and election outcomes that hinge on the mobilization of one's base. Missing from Boren's account is any hint of what kinds of positions he thinks are being squeezed out in the current dynamic.

And there's the rub. There are only two political parties. Under the circumstances, polarization is all but inevitable. Third parties, meanwhile, never succeed in the United States but do often wind up having an impact on the course of events. But to have an impact, you have to have some kind of point of view that you're advancing. Big-time third party candidacies -- Strom Thurmond 1948, George Wallace 1968, Ross Perot 1992 -- aren't based on generic appeals to bringing the country together, they're based on policy agendas that neither major party reflects. You could imagine a third party campaign based on Ron Paul's brand of libertarian nationalism, but all Boren, Bloomberg, et. al. have are platitudes.

Comments

They don't like democracy, so they're warning both the Republicans and the Democrats not to nominate a Populist (Huckabee, Edwards), but a Very Serious candidate (Obama, Romney, Clinton).

Posted by ~~~~ | December 31, 2007 8:45 AM

What Boren, Bloomberg may have is a weak Republican candidate and a black - or, to lesser degree, female - Democratic candidate. In other words, they have a gap in the market, caused not by the policies they offer, but by the demographics of the candidate from the party with the lead in the polls.

Obama is probably good for Bloomberg, sadly.

Posted by otto | December 31, 2007 8:46 AM

These unity08 and "centrism kicks ass" people scare me. There are enough dumb Americans to tilt the vote and help republicans win, and unlike the Nader effect, this one will be carried out by people too stupid to know policy if it kicked them in the crotch.

Posted by I have a large penis | December 31, 2007 9:03 AM

How is a Bloomberg presidency going to get a Democratic and Republican Congress to pass a single one of his bills or any bill for that matter?

Posted by bajsa | December 31, 2007 9:05 AM

My spouse has worked for years in New York City government and since this Unity '08 news ramped up over the weekend we've been trying to figure out why Bloomberg is doing this when he's emphatically denied it for so many months. While I can't speak for her, I'm guessing that a futile exercise in which Bloomberg wastes billions of his own money must mean it's all about him.

Because Bloomberg has positioned himself, temperamentally, as the anti-Giuliani -- less bombast, more reliance on varying perspectives when hammering out policy, more inclusive of the African-American community -- we forget that in his own quiet and courtly way he's every bit a self-regarding egotist as Giuliani. He's just far more skilled at masking it.

If this turns out to be serious, who does it help, the GOP or the Dems? Idle speculation at this point, but I'm curious to know what MY and others think.

Posted by BryklynLibrul | December 31, 2007 9:08 AM

oh, shush, you DFH. what do you know anyway? do YOU have a column in the NYTimes like that grinning sh*tbag Kristol? hmmf. I thought not.

Posted by annagranfors | December 31, 2007 9:16 AM

They want a Wall Street Republican. Well, they're not going to get one. They'll just divide the divided Republicans even more. But I'm afraid of their influence. Bill Clinton claims that he would have done more good except that he had to give in to Perot's campaign for a balanced budget.

Posted by Gary Sugar | December 31, 2007 9:18 AM

I should also add that, in the policy arena, I'm unclear how this bipartisan "third way" deviates from anything the Republicans have offered over the last seven years. With the possible exceptions of global warming and a woman's right to choose, the Unity '08ers continue to affirm all the GOP's orthodox positions on national security, Iraq, taxes, economic volatility, foreign policy, health care reform, Social Security reform, education, et.. al.

Perhaps someone can point out to me how the Broders and Hiatts and Nunns and Bloombergs of the world actually embrace Democratic policies in such a way as to balance out their passion for Republican views. Bipartisan? They're all moderate Republicans and shouldn't pretend to be otherwise.

Posted by BryklynLibrul | December 31, 2007 9:23 AM

If this turns out to be serious, who does it help, the GOP or the Dems?

Well, the Money Wing of the GOP is scared of the populists and would prefer a billionaire businessman, and the rank-and-file of the GOP keep picking "None of the Above." Meanwhile, progressive Dems keep gritting their teeth over the bland centrism mixed with hawkishness of Senator Clinton, who nonetheless is no further to the right than Mr. Bloomberg. Therefore, applying the Washington Pundit Operation, I must conclude that a Bloomberg candidacy helps Republicans. Because everything helps Republicans.

(Now, there is a scenario that hurts Dems, where mushy middle-of-the-road folks, or some self-identified conservatives, would vote for certain Dems, but given an alternative will vote 3rd Party instead. But the very polarization this noble band of self-important fuckwits decry means that this isn't likely to be a very significant effect.)

Posted by mds | December 31, 2007 9:26 AM

Well look. Suppose Bloomberg runs, spends $1B of his own money, and grabs 12% of the national vote.

He gets lots of national television visibility and impresses all his rich NYC friends, while stocking up on anecdotes for all his future cocktail parties.

Meanwhile, a vast horde of consultants, pollsters, and other political operatives split something like $150M among themselves.

Where's the downside?...

Posted by RKU | December 31, 2007 9:29 AM

The scenario which hurts Dems is where enough voters won't vote for a black man when a non-Republican alternative is available.

Posted by otto | December 31, 2007 9:29 AM

I've been lobbying on behalf of the frail elderly, the disabled and the people who provide them home health care and personal services for nearly 20 years, and I can define "hyperpartisan" for you. At least a dozen times, during those years, I've been told that a particular piece of legislation or regulatory reform is good, even great, but that "It came from the wrong side." Both Rs and Ds have been guilty. They could not do the right thing, because they did not wish to give the other party the apparent victory. That's the kind of partisanship that makes some of us grind our teeth.

On the other hand, when then-Governor Tommy Thompson and his GOP pals in the legislature tried to zero funding for the personal care worker program that makes independence and dignity possible for so many disabled people, I took great partisan delight in repeatedly ripping into him. (They backed down when we filled the Capitol rotunda with angry people in wheelchairs and the TV cameras came out.)

Posted by Russell | December 31, 2007 9:34 AM

If this turns out to be serious, who does it help, the GOP or the Dems? Idle speculation at this point, but I'm curious to know what MY and others think.

It depends on a) who the two parties nominate, and b) who Bloomberg chooses as a running mate and also c) which issues Bloomberg emphasizes.

But my fear is it would help the Republicans. My sense is there are more starry-eyed, reform-minded voters (suckers for third party movements, in other words) in blue states than in red, and that in general such voters -- at least this time around -- would be much more likely to vote Democratic if there's no other alternative. The fairly liberal, supposedly reform-minded Bloomberg will now give them an alternative. Bloomberg would be much more a John Anderson style candidate than a Ross Perot.

Side note: My guess is Bloomberg would actually make a half decent president. He strikes me as essentially a moderate to liberal Democrat. Problem is he has no chance of winning. Maybe if McCain gets the nod for the GOP, his insufficient hatred of immigrants will prompt someone like Tancredo or Dobbs to get in the race.

Posted by Jasper | December 31, 2007 9:41 AM

This movement needs a name. How about The Bloomers?

Frilly underwear! Now that's something every American can get behind!

Posted by lambert strether | December 31, 2007 9:47 AM

I understand David Boren and folks like that showing up. They're all essentially Liebercrats to begin with.

But Gary Hart ought to know better. He's lost respect in my eyes.

Posted by Petey | December 31, 2007 9:49 AM

This fetish for bipartisanship is certainly something I don't quite understand. Putting aside Bloomberg, the main reason why bills don't get bipartisan support is because most times the other side simply is WRONG on the issue. You can't bring a republican to the table on global warming if they don't believe in it in the first place and if you do, the resulting "bipartisan" bill is a piece of crap and so what you are left with is legislation that really don't get anything done. And isn't that what most Americans say is their problem with the legislative branch?

Posted by Adrock | December 31, 2007 9:59 AM

They don't like democracy

Should Americans feel great about their democracy?

Posted by Righteous Bubba | December 31, 2007 10:01 AM

Bloomberg is a nice Jewish boy from New York. He has no appeal to Southern and Midwestern Christians. He has a lot of appeal to Jewish retirees in Florida and to Jewish voters and contributors in NY, NJ and California - voters whose domestic views are liberal but whose foreign policy views are determined almost entirely by their support for Israel. If Obama is the candidate, Bloomberg could help elect the Republican, most likely by depriving Obama of Florida, where Jews - mostly elderly and not particularly sophisticated - are about 5% of the electorate. Among them, the "Obama is a Muslim" smear is particularly effective.

In the long run, the effect of a Bloomberg candidacy would be to continue to hammer a wedge between Jewish voters and the Democratic party on the Israel issue, in hopes of leading more of them to migrate to the Republicans over time - much in the way that George Wallace led southerners to make the same migration.

Posted by Bloix | December 31, 2007 10:08 AM

Bloomberg does have unique policy positions that run contrary to those of either party. Namely, reasonably popular positions that infringe on controversial personal freedoms for the sake of public health and safety: strict gun control, smoking bans, childhood nutrition, etc. I work across the street from the Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, and from the investment there you can see he's dedicated to it in a way no one else is (well, Tommy Thompson was I guess, and Huckabee is a bit, but they both suck). On a less-reported note, Bloomberg's been doing some yeoman's work to combat homelessness in New York.

Bloomberg's also got the "competent manager" vibe about him that Romney's too creepy to pull off and that Bush managed to benefit from despite having actually mismanaged any number of attempts at independent enterprise. I mean, did anyone else see Bloomberg on TV after that Yankee pitcher crashed into a highrise? He was out there spitting out info on the type of plane, details about the route it took over Manhattan, emergency response progress, etc. If Giuliani were still Mayor by that point he'd take a few minutes to put his dick away and then respond that it was too early to confirm al Qaeda involvement.

I could easily see a Bloomberg/Hagel ticket (in either order) giving the GOP a real scare here. The GOP's about as fractured as it could possibly be now, and if there's ever a chance for a major party realignment in my lifetime this is probably it. All that said, while it'd be nice to have a President who focused on eliminating fat people on scooters at Wal-Mart over hunting in caves for whomever, I prefer the likely Dem nominees by far aside from Edwards (no clue why you're still on the fence about possibly supporting someone with such a hollow, phony persona).

Posted by Zach | December 31, 2007 10:26 AM

Bloomberg's not going to do this. No way. He's somebody who likes to win, he's not going to run for 12%, not for all the cocktail-party anecdotes in the world.

Kevin Sheekey has been doing polls for a while -- it's not public, but it's not exactly secret either -- and you can bet that Bloomberg is looking at the numbers closely and if he thought he had a chance he would be in. But he's too smart to fool himself into thinking that he does.

Incidentally, Bloomberg really has been a great mayor -- one of the greatest, in the opinion of smart people pretty much across the spectrum -- in New York, largely in the sort of technocratic, non-partisan and frankly unaccountable way that the Broderistas fantasize about. But the special circumstances that made that possible here aren't remotely present on the national level.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | December 31, 2007 10:33 AM

"Bloomberg's not going to do this. No way. He's somebody who likes to win, he's not going to run for 12%, not for all the cocktail-party anecdotes in the world."

But he's got incentive to keep this going as long as he can without actually pulling the trigger.

And don't rule out him running in the end. If his advisors can (wrongly) convince him he's got a 1 in 6 chance of winning, one can imagine him deciding it's worth it to roll the dice.

Posted by Petey | December 31, 2007 10:39 AM

But he's got incentive to keep this going as long as he can without actually pulling the trigger.

And don't rule out him running in the end. If his advisors can (wrongly) convince him he's got a 1 in 6 chance of winning, one can imagine him deciding it's worth it to roll the dice.

Agreed on both points. He's going to keep his options open for as long as possible. But he's going to want to see some actual numbers showing how it could happen and I just don't see where those are coming from.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | December 31, 2007 10:42 AM

Bloomberg is a nice Jewish boy from New York.

Actually, Bloix, Bloomberg is a nice Jewish boy from Boston.

Posted by TrialByError | December 31, 2007 10:47 AM

I should point out that while I do think Bloomberg would get some real support and think he brings something unique to the table (a willingness to address issues unmentionable in both parties), I also doubt he'll run. He's smart enough to know that the large fraction of a billion it'd take to peel off 20% wouldn't be the best way to spend that money, and even if he could do relatively well he'd still have to contend w/ the electoral college.

Posted by Zach | December 31, 2007 11:19 AM

Briefly, I tend to agree with many commenters that a Bloomberg candidacy would help the Republicans. But I also think it is worthwhile to consider what a Bloomberg candidacy might mean for a winning Democratic candiidate, especially if the Bloomberg vote was close to or greater than the Democratic margin of victory. This would be the illegitimate minority Clinton argument redux, and the contention that Bloomberg votes were really Republican votes, that they have a mandate, blah, blah blah. And granted that this might be a minor point in the Republican scorched earth policy against any Democratic President, but it would almost certainly receive wide dissemination and some support from the Village. All those Broderists who never considered that a Republican president who lost the popular vote (and likely the Electoral College if an accurate Florida recound was allowed) and was installed by party line vote of a Republican POTUS might want to govern moderately, would demand all sorts of "bipartisanship" up the wazoo from a Democrat elected by the "fluke" of divided Republicans. BTW, if you cannot tell, in the debate pitting Kruman partisanship against Obama splendiferousness, I'm a Krugmanite. The Republican startegy, abetted by its Village allies, against any Democratic President will likely make the Clinton years look like one of their mythic Tip O'Neill-Reagan bipartisan tea parties. A Bloomberg candidacy that prevents the Democrat from wining a majotiy vote will not help.

BTW, is spending a billion dolars really a big deal for Bloomberg? Granted, the rich are different from you and me, but such an expense would still leave Bloomberg with enough money to satisy any conceivable desire (as well as those of his heirs). Given that, what would such an expenditure mean to a man in his mid-60s with an obviously enormous ego?

Posted by Marlowe | December 31, 2007 12:29 PM

Don't forget David Broder (how could you ever?). Ambinder's gloss that Broder had just "discover[ed]" Unity '08 was funny, but wrong - I think the whole shebang reeks of self-imagined "statesmen" hoping to have great influence despite having essentially no current political involvement.

This is fine for blue-ribbon panels whose conclusions are predestined to be ignored...but we don't need a blue-ribbon commission on who gets to be the next president.

Atrios comes off as a jerk in many of his posts, but on this issue he is, and has been, exactly right.

Posted by bloombergiana blah | December 31, 2007 12:41 PM

Bloomberg is a joke as a national candidate. Forget about him. He won't even affect the outcome all that much, the best he could do is splinter the hapless Rethugs even more.

The only point of interest in all of this (because for so many reasons all this Unity 08 is just pure BS), is just how senile, out of touch and silly the Broders, Nunns and Danforths of this world have become. It's really and advertisement for how they should be ignored.

Posted by mjshep | December 31, 2007 12:50 PM

"Bloomberg does have unique policy positions that run contrary to those of either party. Namely, reasonably popular positions that infringe on controversial personal freedoms for the sake of public health and safety: strict gun control, smoking bans, childhood nutrition, etc."

The very reason Democrats have decided to run from their record on gun control is that, in practice, strict gun control hasn't proven to be "reasonably popular", outside of liberal enclaves that are guaranteed Democratic territory anyway. I suppose it's possible that Bloomberg could tilt one or two of those enclaves to the GOP tally by openly running on a Democratic position the actual Democrats are in stealth mode on, though.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | December 31, 2007 1:14 PM

I'm now wondering if Bloomberg wouldn't help the Democrats by allowing the Dem nominee to attack him on his obscene nanny-statism. If Obama were to get the nomination, for example, and then were to turn around and chastise Bloomberg for taking choice out of peoples' hands viz. snack foods in schools or what have you, he would still be able to push a liberal agenda without having to contend with the inevitable nanny criticism.

Posted by Lev | December 31, 2007 1:45 PM

On the other hand, a Bloomberg candidacy in the context of a Clinton-Huckabee race might peel off some votes from very serious moderates in each party, but would leave large blocs of conservative voters deeply unsatisfied with their choices and entice them with the prospect of a broken field to run through. Enter candidates #4 and #5, Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo.

Mass hysteria!

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | December 31, 2007 3:14 PM

You could imagine a third party campaign based on Ron Paul's brand of libertarian nationalism, but all Boren, Bloomberg, et. al. have are platitudes.

This is about right. While Bloomberg might think voter disaffect would lead them to support a third party, split-the-difference candidacy, Paul actually speaks to the individual concerns of a broad coalition of disaffected voters, which is sometimes refreshing to hear (and sometimes confusing and ludicrous). I'm sure the latter's support isn't hurt by the fact that he doesn't split any differences whatsoever, lending him an air of earnestness in a profession in which earnestness is unheard of.

If Bloomberg thinks he can pick up any of the Paul, Perot, Nader or Buchananite voters just by saying he's a little progressive, a little conservative and not very polarizing, he's nothing but a fool with a swollen wallet and a swollen head.

*As a side note, this Broder guy is also a fool. I'm all for an abandonment of partisanship in favor of a discussion of ideas, but Yglesias's simple "(X+Y)/2" formulation about sums up everything I've ever read from Broder.

Dear Mr. Broder,
When presented with two bad ideas, the correct answer is "neither," not "a little bit of both."

Posted by Shinyk | December 31, 2007 4:10 PM

If Bloomberg thinks he can pick up any of the Paul, Perot, Nader or Buchananite voters just by saying he's a little progressive, a little conservative and not very polarizing, he's nothing but a fool with a swollen wallet and a swollen head.

Just to elaborate, many of the Paul/Nader/Buchanan voters are outliers on issues that those candidates were the sole candidates to address.

"Centrism" has no more appeal to these voters than does Party Orthodoxy.

Posted by Shinyk | December 31, 2007 4:22 PM

MY: There are only 2 political parties, and third parties can't ever win.

What this demonstrates is that the electoral system devised over 200 years ago is failing, and with it the country. Half the country doesn't vote, probably because in any close presidential election 2/3 of the states are out of play*. There is no reward for getting 20% or 30% of the vote so long as another candidate gets a higher percentage. A significant minority group can't move the Overton Window, on either the state or Federal level, by getting proportional representation for their views. Our electoral system is shit. I sympathize with the people who come up with wacky and/or new ideas because the status quo is garbage.

* At this time in the last presidential election cycle, in December of 2003, I did a state-by-state analysis of the Electoral College and determined that whoever won Ohio would win the election. 10 months later, right before the election, I kept hearing "It'll probably come down to Ohio" on the news and from bloggers. Is a system where you can determine one year in advance that voting in 49 of 50 states almost doesn't matter a good one? I don't think so. I live in a location that will vote for the same political party on the Federal level for all offices, President, Senator, Congressman, for as long as the eye can see. My vote on the federal level is completely superfluous. This is a horrible, horrible system and needs to be changed.

Posted by blah2 | December 31, 2007 4:32 PM

Actually, Bloix, Bloomberg is a nice Jewish boy from Boston.

Bloomberg doesn't live in New York City?

Bloomberg is a joke as a national candidate. Forget about him. He won't even affect the outcome all that much

Depends on what you mean by "affect the outcome." Anybody who spends a billion dollars campaigning is capable of having a profound impact on the race.

Now, 20% of the vote doesn't mean much in terms of affecting the outcome if it's taken equally from both parties. But that seems unlikely, especially considering how close the margins are. Even if Bloomberg just pulls a handful more Dem voters than he does Republicans, it could be enough.

Posted by Jason C. | December 31, 2007 4:48 PM

He also has money.
Lots of money.
Fear him.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | December 31, 2007 6:38 PM

In a year when Democrats SHOULD win the White House and Republicans appear to be in at least some trouble there is only one reason to jump into the race. To make sure the party on life support retains the White House.

The Unity '08 group can't possibly win. They must realize that. They can't be THAT stupid (nah. I'll be civil).

The Borens and Nunns, the I never met a massive weapons contract I didn't love gang, are Democrats but from the right-hand side of the tent. Throw in Danforth and what we have is the Village people minus one.

These people aren't doing this out of patriotism, they're doing this to try to preserve the status quo. That disgusting demand about bi-partisan actions is a dead giveaway. They want to make sure there is no change.

They know that if a Democrat, any Democrat wins the White House there will be ENORMOUS pressure for change. They simply can't have that. Too many of their friends and associates of many years have far too much money at stake to take that risk.

They'll get the bulk of their support from the Idiot Independent, the 'I just can't understand why we all can't get along' voter who flunked Civics 001.

They'll get votes from Democrats who are pissed that Clinton was nominated or pissed that Edwards was nominated or pissed that Obama was nominated or pissed that Kucinich was ignored.

Republicans, sensing blood will stick with whatever piece of garbage they nominate.

The Broder's and the Hiatt's will cheer and will call the B-N-D (mediocrities)group the epitome of elder statesmen and we'll be faced with yet another catastrophe. And yes there will be polarization.

There are probably many ironies to all of this but this one eats at me.

The Nunns, Borens and Danforths sat in the Senate during the 80s while the American center was being hacked to pieces and did nothing and in fact acquiesced. They couldn't see it when it was happening right before their eyes.

Now they come back crying about the lost center, a center they allowed to be destroyed.

Posted by cal1942 | December 31, 2007 7:47 PM

Bloomberg is a Republican spoiler, with a small element of "pick me pick me pick me" if there's a brokered Republican convention.

He may tilt the results just enough for the Repugs to steal it again. That's worth a billion to a very rich man.

Posted by Dr Zen | December 31, 2007 11:28 PM

Here are three reasons why Mike Bloomberg is nothing like Perot. Join the Draft Mike Bloomberg movement today!

Posted by Andrew MacRae | January 2, 2008 2:51 PM