He used to be a Democrat. Then he decided to become a Republican when he ran (and was elected) for mayor of New York City. Now he’s switched course again, renouncing his political affiliation to either party and instead joined the growing ranks of non-affiliated registered voters.

Michael Bloomberg. The self-made billionaire turned politician who denies a possible presidential run in 2008 in spite of the recent whirlwind of media speculation that he will do just that. There’s no end to the buzz about what a Bloomberg candidacy would bring to the ’08 election race. Many compare the scenario to the Perot candidacies of ’92 and ’96, and that’s probably as good a comparison as any. Except that Bloomberg is slightly better known than Perot was and he’s a hell of a lot richer. Naturally, the media focuses on who a Bloomberg candidacy would hurt the most: the Democratic or the Republican candidate? Choosing to portray Bloomberg as just another spoiler (ala Nader and Perot) from the outset, pundits and traditional media outlets once again reinforce to voters the notion that American government is a two party affair; that even though other kids can get into the school dance, they never really make it onto the floor. So while I don’t know a whole lot about Michael Bloomberg, per se, I do have some thoughts about what his independent candidacy could mean.

Hooray For Independents

My initial reaction to a possible independent Bloomberg candidacy is a burst of relief, not just that there would be a non-party affiliated candidate running for president (because after all, there are dozens of small party candidates on the ballot every election), but because Bloomberg has the capital to back up a decision to run. That financial might makes him a real contender if he chooses to be, meaning that there would at least be a realistic possibility that America could elect a non-partisan (at least officially) president not bound to any party, and perhaps (theoritically at least) more willing to look at what Americans seem to say they want from their government, and then present those ideas to the Congress for action. It would serve as a big wake-up call to the political establishment that it was time to change their ways and return to representing the people, or the people would be changing them.

Bloomberg seems to be a more true representation of the American voter too, at least in terms of political ideology. Few voters are staunchly right or left leanings in all their political/social beliefs. Most are a nuance of beliefs that affilliation with neither party exclusively can provide. If Bloomberg indeed fits this mold, as his Dem/Rep/Ind positions show, the citizens of America would have a president not bound by party ideology that appealed to a narrow “base,” or a corporate subservience based on financial fealty. And in an era of political scandal for personal gain, Bloomberg’s own lack of scandal (that I am aware of) and his refusal to take any more than $1 in salary as mayor of New York City, shows a refreshing sense of stewardship clearly lacking in today’s politicians. As Congress and state officials across the land vote to increase their own salaries while slashing troop benefits and social programs, Bloomberg thinks his city can use the money more than he can, so he makes sure the city keeps it. A small gesture to be sure, but one that some recent wealthy presidents and government leaders seem unable to make themselves.

Which of course brings us to speak of Bloomberg’s wealth and the advantages that offers him. As a billionaire, the man wouldn’t need to be beholden to any particular entity (corporate, economic sector, or otherwise), nor would he have to engage in the cesspool of incestuous political fundraising that now consumes much of our elected officials’ day planners. His money makes him truly independent, and what’s more, injecting a few billion dollars into the national economy would mean he could truly claim to have done something to help the economy. His campaign would stimulate income for broadcasters and advertisers, bumper sticker printers, t-shirt vendors, and on down the line. Talk about a tangible campaign slogan.

On The Other Hand

Of course, the other side of the money issue is whether a Bloomberg campaign would be portrayed as an attempt to ‘buy the presidency.’ Would a Bloomberg independent (and independently financed) candidacy spell trouble for future independent candidates simply by raising the bar so high? After all, there are only so many billionaires to go around. Other than BIll Gates and Oprah, there aren’t many to choose from. Maybe Warren Buffet? And who’s to say they want they job? Or are even independent? If the only way to win a major office as an independent is to be insanely wealthy, Bloomberg could end up an anamoly instead of a harbinger of real change.

And then there is still the whole “spoiler” issue to contend with. Because unless Bloomberg can convince tens and tens of millions of Americans to actually vote for him, all he’s likely to do is tip the scales more heavily towards one of the major party poster children or effect a painfully close decision likely to lengthen our country’s divisiveness. Instead of disfunctional dualism, we’d end up as a disfunctional triad. And I’m not sure that this country needs to become even more politically divided.

Final Thoughts

So is America well served by an independent, billion-dollar campaign? And is Michael Bloomberg even the guy to run it? I’m afraid I just have the answer right now. But I can tell you this- I’m pretty well tired of the bullshit and what passes for political leadership these days. And maybe if for no other reason than to show those pampered, out-of-touch politicians that enough is enough, a Michael Bloomberg is just what this country needs. I tell you what- unless we find out he’s some kind of underground child molester, I’ll vote for an independent these days over a party candidate every chance I get.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)