New York City: Bloomberg Wins Big

New York City re-elected Mayor Michael Bloomberg over his Democratic challenger Freddy Ferrer, the former Bronx Borough President, about a week and a half ago. FYI, in the spirit of full disclosure, I used to work in the Bloomberg New York City government, but these are really just observations of the media.

I don't feel bad blogging about it well after the fact, because though the election just ended last week, the election seems like it has been over for months. Ferrer never seemed to find his footing against Bloomberg, who turned most of his potential disadvantages into advantages:

• his relatively colorless public persona came to signify his competence at governing;

• his inexperience in government was billed as an antidote for those things that we dislike most about our politicians and politics;

• his willingness to use his fortune both in strategic philanthropy and to buy (oops, I meant) to win the election never became a handicap;

• his initial opportunistic switch from registered Democrat to Republican candidate played well in a Democratic town (even better than his newfound appreciation of the Yankees after being a lifelong Red Sox fan);

• all in all, the past four years were roundly considered a relief after the histrionic and divisive Giuliani era.

Upon reflection, I find myself offering all of these snarky caveats, not because Bloomberg is a bad mayor, but because by the manner of his election. It is true that he is a well-meaning public servant, since he could otherwise retreat to a pretty good life without all of the hassle; and it is true that he governs competently and efficiently. The democratic process, however, is poorly served by the basically unlimited sums of money that he spent on the election -- estimated at $74 million -- and by the fact that no one really discussed the fact that this wealth translates into privileged speech in the public realm.

If this sounds too academic, make no mistake about it, everything about Bloomberg's campaign was enabled by his immense wealth, which resulted in less debate and less real dialogue (though this was aided by Ferrer's lack of ability to engage in dialogue, either).

Though I don't miss election campaign drama for it's own sake, I think that there is real value in the process of the debate, and real value in being able to identify with your politician's values and community. Elections are one of the chief arenas for both politicians and electorates to build this rapport. I don't mean simply the politics of personal identification, but I mean the process by which communities and leaders begin to talk about what matters to them, what messages resonate, and what goals are worthy of focus in the upcoming term. Sure, it can be -- and is often -- blithely stated that money influences politics, but if that is a fact of life, then it certainly is a disappointing one. Belief in democracy requires one to work against this cynical certainty.

So, in the absence of any real suspense, most of the articles have focused on the significance of Bloomberg's large margin of victory, and particularly what it says about New York City after just about everything: post-Giuliani, post-September 11th, and post-racial politics:

• The best article I've seen is by Greg Sargent in the online edition of the American Prospect, which finds hope in Bloomberg's "smart-government liberalism", yet the article also (quite fairly) analyzes the issue of Bloomberg's wealth, and differing media coverage of Bloomberg and Ferrer. These questions should have been asked during the campaign, and discussed more widely, but the issues seem to have met with resignation and indifference more than anything else.

• There's an interesting article from the New York Times about how the Bloomberg campaign developed new profiles of the electorate, including Fearful and Anxious New Yorkers (FANS), middle-class moderates of all races ("Middle Middles"), cultural liberals, and so on. Kevin Sheeky, City Hall spokesman, spins it as a path for "future candidates to communicate with voters on something other than race- or religion-based formulas". One of the main points of the article, though, is that it takes a mere $10 million to create;

• Many articles on the most expensive city election on history, with Bloomberg spending roughly $70 million. An article from the New York Times on Nov. 4th, based on campaign filings, put his spending at close to the $74 million spent in 2001 (NYT, restricted access). For a final tallied vote of 723,635 votes (NYT), that's more than $100 per vote. (New York Times, Yahoo!).

• The weakness of Fernando Ferrer as a candidate (NYT). I'm surprised to find some good commentary that I agree with from the Wall Street Journal (it's not free), by one of the editors of City Journal, which explains well the palpable disconnect between the local Democratic party and the vast Democratic electorate.

• Mayor as an outsider: Otis White has a nice piece at Governing about the trend towards mayors elected from outside politics, including some other highly regarded current mayors, like Atlanta's Shirley Franklin, Denver's John Hickenlooper, and others.

So, what comes next? This news analysis from the New York Times, released on election night -- and clearly prepared well in advance -- speculates on what Mayor Bloomberg is going to do this newfound political capital.

This week, Bloomberg already appointed some of his top officials to the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, in an effort to shake up the Ground Zero rebuilding effort (NYT).

Sadly, one of the things that Bloomberg has already rejected is congestion pricing (NYT, New York Observer). (Sorry, Green Economics, I liked your spirit.)

Technorati Tags: cities, New York, urban