A Running Commentary

Mayor Michael Bloomberg unequivocally declared yesterday that he will not stage the independent Presidential run he has long ‘secretly’ evaluated. The announcement comes as a disappointment to many who’d hoped the business mogul turned effective leader would stage a campaign outside the realm of traditional partisan warfare.

In his New York Times op-ed accompanying the announcement, Bloomberg claims that the existing candidates could run such a campaign if either “rise to the challenge by offering truly independent leadership.” Unfortunately Bloomberg’s official departure means just the opposite. Not only will there be no significant third candidate to impact this election (Nader who?) but real change is all but impossible.

What Bloomberg calls an “independent approach” is really just the practical, common sense thinking of someone used to delivering results in the business world. If there is a problem explore all the best solutions, examine others who’ve tackled and conquered the same problems, think innovatively, etc. This is how real businesses work. There is no preconceived partisan platform or bureaucratic quagmire to wade through. This is the sort of change Bloomberg calls on the campaigns to pursue this fall.

But let’s be honest. The most inappropriate and overused word in politics is “change”. The word is a drug for politicians, Presidential campaigns in particular. These people throw the word around in disingenuous sound bite attempts to depict their campaigns as ‘the will of the people’. If the Federal treasury got a nickel for every candidate’s use of the phrases “real change”, “moving the country forward” and similar such pap there would be no national debt.

We all know inherently that this is crap each and every time these people say it. The idea that any of the mainstream party candidates can change the way the political system works is absurd. Sure Democrats and Republicans offer different policies on any number of issues. Obama and McCain couldn’t differ much more on foreign policy for example. But differing positions on “issues” isn’t the change Bloomberg’s campaign would have brought.

Here’s how political campaigns work: On each side there are two very dedicated groups of party faithful. Year in and year out these are the people who do the bulk of the work, funding, and heavy lifting that makes their party powerful. They are the apparatus, the true believers. Many of these people own, and occasionally even wear, articles of clothing with their party’s logo on it. Keep in mind that for Democrats, that involves the Jacksonian image of a jackass. They’re in same league as the NASCAR fan willing to pay $350 for a leather jacket with an 18” Viagra logo on the back. These people are dedicated.

Left over in the ‘middle’ is a pool of people that dwarf both of these groups put together. Some are conservative leaning, some liberal, some independent. Many don’t care and won’t vote at all. Both campaigns try to attract votes from this group but it is always with an eye toward pleasing and stoking up the party base. Why? Because the party faithful are the driving force; if the apparatus breaks down, there is no campaign. And the faithful are not new and innovative. Not only are their minds made up on the issues but it is there dedication to those issues that drives them to be involved in the first place. That is why there is so much hand wringing among Republicans over whether the moderate McCain can bring out the core of his party.

Certainly Howard Dean in 2004 and Barack Obama at present have attracted unprecedented grassroots support outside traditional party lines. But keep in mind that is in primary season, a time when the national and state party machines are not yet unified. John Kerry garnered huge support from younger, independent voters in 2004 but his general election campaign was exceptionally traditional and partisan.

It will likely take a third candidate to break this mold. Not Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, or Ron Paul. Someone proven and electable. Someone who has the immense financing, clout and relationships needed to reinvent the wheel. Even then the sheer ballast and inertia of the party faithful on both sides require perfect timing and fortune. With the Obama hype machine in full swing, Bloomberg is probably right to hold off for now. But he’ll certainly be watching.