By Kevin D. Williamson
Thursday, December 5, 2019
An angry, vain, out-of-touch white guy from New York
City. Lots of money. Weird little neuroses he insists on working out in public.
Issues with women, a habit of taking racially charged political stances, and a
history of leaving friends and enemies alike unsure which side of the aisle his
loyalties actually lie on. It is impossibly amusing to imagine the 2020
presidential match-up pitting Donald Trump against Michael Bloomberg —
President Grab ’Em by the P***y vs. Mayor Grab ’Em by the Slurpee — but the
Democrats do not seem very likely to nominate their own billionaire Manhattan
megalomaniac, which is really too bad: He is their best candidate.
We should not write off Michael Bloomberg just yet — so
says the author of the 2016 non-bestseller The Case against Trump — if
only because we live in insane political times during which anything,
apparently, can happen, and just might. But Michael Bloomberg is no Donald
Trump, and most of the many things he has in common with the president will
work against him in the 2020 Democratic primary at least as hard as they worked
in favor of Trump in 2016.
For example, Democrats are not entirely immune to that
eternal nonsense about the need to “run government like a business,” but they
are less vulnerable to that than Republicans are. Bloomberg could with good
reason point to himself as a genuine self-made man in sharp contrast to the
playboy-heir in the White House: Trump inherited a vast fortune and lost most
of it before growing wealthy in the celebrity racket, whereas Bloomberg, the
son of modest middle-class parents (his father was a bookkeeper at a dairy
company and, later, a real-estate agent), built a globally significant
information powerhouse and, along with it, a fortune that puts his personal wealth
at multiples of Trump’s. Bloomberg is the real-life version of the kind of guy
Trump used to play on television: a domineering, ruthless, hypercompetent
executive and entrepreneur. But Democrats are not very excited about alpha-dog
businessmen and billionaires these days, especially media/tech billionaires who
are also crotchety old skirt-chasing white guys.
And a crotchety old skirt-chasing white guy who has been
elected to office once as a Republican and precisely zero times as a Democrat?
Let us merely note that bipartisanship is not very much in fashion right at the
moment. Even Bloomberg’s remarkable philanthropy — his speechwriters, if they
are any good, might acidly note that he has given away more money than Donald
Trump has ever made — puts him on the wrong side of the angry American Left,
which dismisses philanthropy as a cynical distraction from robust
state-centered programs of economic redistribution.
Whereas Donald Trump thrived on identity politics — the
crusade of the Great White Cheesed-Off Interior Real America vs. . . .
Mexicans, globalists, Jewish refugees from Breitbart, Ted Cruz’s dad,
“the Swamp,” the Chinese, Ted Cruz’s wife, the Germans, NATO, more Mexicans (¡cuidado,
Judge Curiel!), Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, American prisoners of war, etc.
— Michael Bloomberg instead faces an uphill fight on the identity-politics
front. He does not tick any of the right boxes and checks off most of the wrong
ones. In an age of intersectionality, the only intersection Michael Bloomberg
comfortably occupies is at the corner of Rat and Bastard.
(Or 59th and Lexington, sure: To-may-to, to-mah-to.)
Bloomberg is a Washington outsider in a genuine sense: He
served three terms as mayor of New York City and has generally regarded
Washington and its denizens as something somewhere between necessary evil and
evil. But whereas Trump’s outsider status endeared him to Republicans, who are
nearly uniform in their rhetorical detestation of Washington, Bloomberg’s
outsider status does nothing for him among Democrats who are interested in
centralizing power in Washington and believe, not without reason, that this
ambition would best be served by the leadership of a veteran of the national
legislature. Republicans in 2016 wanted a frothing rage-monster who would put
Washington’s elites in their place; Democrats in 2020 want a cool insider who
will rally Washington’s elites to their cause.
Which is to say, most Democrats want a variation on the
theme of Barack Obama: Joe Biden was Obama’s vice president; Elizabeth Warren
and Pete Buttigieg both are products of Harvard (the law school and the
undergraduate college, respectively) and both would represent a first in the
White House: first woman, first gay man. (You get an asterisk, James Buchanan.)
Buttigieg’s smug corporate style, bred at McKinsey & Company, has more than
a little Obama in it. (A little bit also of Bill Clinton, another Rhodes
scholar.) Senator Warren represents to some Democrats the missed opportunity of
the Obama years, an alternative storyline in which President Obama went after
Wall Street hammer-and-tongs. That appeals to many Democrats, while a sizeable
minority of them, between 15 percent and 25 percent, prefer the outright
socialist Bernie Sanders — and Michael Bloomberg does nothing to satisfy either
tendency.
And that raises Michael Bloomberg’s biggest cultural
challenge in the Democratic primary: Democratic voters in 2020 are a mirror
image of Republican voters in 2016 in that they do not desire mere electoral
victory but also a cultural repudiation of the incumbent president — they want
political antimatter, much as Republicans in 2016 found in Trump, who is as
different a man from Barack Obama as the national stage had to offer. Michael Bloomberg
may despise Donald Trump and hold him in contempt, but he is in affect and
cultural temperament a man more similar to than dissimilar from the president,
at least from the point of view of a teachers’-union-local president in
Milwaukee, which is the point of view that matters most in Democratic circles.
Donald Trump ran as the Republican id; Michael
Bloomberg is running as the Democratic superego, the pain-in-the-ass guy
with the spreadsheets and the deliverables and the performance reviews and the
quarterly reports. And nobody seems to be in the mood for a grown-up right now.
Bloomberg’s virtues for the Democrats ought to be obvious
enough: He may have been elected mayor as a Republican, but on the emotionally
urgent issues he is with few exceptions firmly aligned with the center-left
positions that represent, in theory, the main stream of the Democratic party:
He has been unwaveringly pro-abortion; he has been more active in the cause of
imposing new firearms restrictions than any other American political figure; on
climate change he is comparable to any of the familiar greenie-weenies, and
arguably more effective when it comes to bringing other business leaders on
board, which is a necessary precondition to any plausible advancement of a global
climate-change agenda.
Bloomberg even has a little something to offer
conservatives: His pragmatism and his relatively modest conception of the
presidency as an administrative position rather than as an elected
godman-emperorship ought to be music to rightish ears, although it remains to
be seen whether those laudable inclinations will long survive the aggrandizing
temptations of the primary. For conservatives and partisan Republicans,
Bloomberg raises a tricky question of political calculation: Should the Right
encourage the growth of a (relatively) moderate and (relatively) pragmatic
tendency in the Democratic party as a way of boxing in the daft enthusiasms of
its ascendant socialists, or should the Right instead prefer to see the
Democrats let their freak flag fly, on the theory that this will make them
easier to beat — which it might, but it also might simply drive American
politics as a whole in a leftward direction.
The Democrats face the opposite calculation: As the
failures to launch and sad fizzles of such plausible moderates as Montana
governor Steve Bullock suggest, the appetite for Clinton-style
business-friendly Democratic pragmatists is not very large at the moment, and
if Joe Biden is tripping over the rightward bound of the acceptable Democratic
field of play, then Michael Bloomberg is on the wrong side of the line, even
though he has foresworn the stop-and-frisk policy that he once credited with
helping to keep a lid on crime in New York. At the same time, the polls have
shown Trump trailing Biden but leading Warren in the battleground states that
are likely to decide the 2020 presidential election, which suggests that the
Overton window of the Democratic primary electorate is seriously misaligned
with that of the general electorate.
Whether the Democrats would prefer losing with Elizabeth
Warren to winning with Michael Bloomberg is likely to remain an entirely
hypothetical question, but it is one worth giving at least a little thought to
in these very strange times. Trump vs. Bloomberg is not a likely matchup, but
then neither was Trump vs. Clinton.
No comments:
Post a Comment