obviously put me in a position where you’re expecting me to say that the historical background behind Bloomberg’s mayorship is completely illogical and inappropriate. You would expect me to say that being a CEO does not make you a politician (and it does not, per se). You would expect me to say that New York City should led by someone elected through a meritocratic system (true, as well).
But I’m honest and realistic with myself–those are all ideals. Bloomberg’s predecessors, Koch, Dinkins and Giuliani, all ran New York City favoring the priorities of the business elite. Can Bloomberg be blamed for already entering a certain system that had certain values? Coming out of 9/11, didn’t we need to speed up our economies? Isn’t a mayor with a significant business background only going to progress our city–one of the most important in the world’s economy? With more money, can’t we help our disenfranchised?
I think Bloomberg’s success should be measured not only by his ruling as a CEO, but also as a “what now?” Has he helped the city’s poor? Yes, certainly he has put efforts into doing so. Has the city become a better place? Certainly–in various aspects. As a political science and urban studies major, I am trying to present here a more wholesome picture, because as another classmate mentioned, Brash presents one side of an argument. Overall, though, summing all the parts of Bloomberg’s leadership, there is no clear cut answer.
