Something that always troubled me about politicians as a group is that oftentimes, their expertise is not in politics at all. You can’t become a CEO after being trained as a nutritionist. You won’t end up Surgeon General if your background is in English literature. But just look at the field of politics, on the other hand, and you see an entirely different story. Ronald Reagan was an ACTOR. Al Franken is a COMEDIAN. And of course, we have Michael Bloomberg. A businessman.
This comes about because elections are, essentially, a popularity contest. The American public tends to vote on what appears most attractive to them. If a politician knows how to properly package his views and persona, he can get elected on this skill alone. It’s one of the great shortcomings of our political system today, though I’m not quite sure how to solve it. It is also, as Brash tells us, is exactly what Bloomberg accomplished. By presenting the image of the “charismatic CEO”, an “everyman” like many of those whom he asked to come out to the polls in support of him, Bloomberg won New York City’s heart.
Like Nicki and Tyler, if I were a voting-age member of the working class at the time of Bloomberg’s election, I would still be exceedingly wary of voting this CEO into office, charismatic or not. Yes, it’s true that, according to Brash, the city was in a neoliberal, pro-elite state of mind on the whole, but that doesn’t mean that the working class were not a sizable constituent. I’m not convinced, therefore, that it was his charisma itself that won them over. The way I see it, it was not an identification with Bloomberg as having originated as a middle class man which motivated the working class to support him alongside the upper class. Rather, it was his promise to deliver that kind of life to the people. His focus on recreating New York in an image at once “urbane, cosmopolitan, cultured, amenity filled and well serviced” appealed to lower classes because they knew Bloomberg had the capabilities to provide these goods and allow them access to a world once enjoyed only by elites.
More than being wary of Bloomberg as an elite, however, I’d be wary of him as a businessman with no prior political experience. Yes, he felt that his background in heading a business gave him excellent leadership skills, but that does not mean he’s qualified for office. Orchestra conductors tend to have good leadership skills as well, but that makes them no more capable of effective political rule than, oh, I don’t know, an actor…even with all of Brash’s reasons, somehow it just goes against common sense, at least in my mind, that the people would choose to elect someone like Bloomberg. Even after 9/11, even with all of his attractive campaigning, even with his charisma. I’ve heard that he is among NYC’s best mayors, but that is in hindsight. At the time, who could honestly say that they didn’t have doubts about Mike Bloomberg? And, the bigger question: Why do we let something as important as political office be determined simply by the facade the candidates put on, more than we do with any other individual working for us? Would anyone trust their choice of surgeon, lawyer or accountant with such a superficial survey of their credentials? I understand people are busy and don’t have time to read all the issues, but why the double standard with regard to something that will determine a large part of their futures?
