As he’s moved up the polls and made his first debate appearances, I’ve been catching up on my Michael Bloomberg reading. I’ve been deeply skeptical from the get-go at the spectacle of a billionaire trying to buy the Democratic presidential nomination, and getting better acquainted with the details of his past and candidacy has only highlighted how obscene and dangerous his nomination would be. The Washington Post has an in-depth report on the long history of sexual harassment of women at the business he founded, while his derogatory remarks about trans people and minorities have been widely reported. Then there’s his stop and frisk policy as New York City mayor, the very archetype of a racist approach to policing.
If you’re wondering how Bloomberg came to anoint himself the savior of the Democratic Party and not get laughed off the virtual public square, I highly recommend this New York Times deep-dive on the power and influence he’s developed in politics through careful deployment of money in exchange for tacit loyalty from politicians and others throughout the country. This has left him with a great deal of credibility in the eyes of many who have received his largesse or agree with the good works it has done.
The most trenchant arguments against his candidacy, though, center on his billionaire status and authoritarian instincts. David Dayen’s take at The American Prospect hits both these points; the following is a powerful summation of what he says it would mean for Democrats to nominate Bloomberg to challenge Donald Trump:
I think it’s a tragic mistake. A plutocrat-on-plutocrat election will just further subvert our already fragile democracy. It will show that nothing matters in a democracy if you have enough money. It will take every comment that Democrats said about the GOP being seduced by Trump and boomerang it back in their faces. It is an act of pure desperation that will alienate giant swathes of the country and put a For Sale sign on democracy, perhaps permanently.
Similarly, Greg Sargent hones in on the contest between Bloomberg and Bernie Sanders to explore the specific damage the former’s vast financial resources can inflict on American democracy. He notes how millions of people have given average donations of $18 to the Sanders campaign, allowing him to run entirely on people power, and asks:
What message will it send if Democrats allow this new model to be snuffed out under an avalanche of one billionaire’s spending from his plutocratic fortune? What message will this send to the millions of people who have scraped to do their part against Trump by donating small sums not just to Sanders but also to the other Democrats?
Framing the fight against Bloomberg’s intrusion into the race as not just Bloomberg versus a particular candidate, but effectively against the collective voice of all the supporters of a candidate, helps clarify the stakes. Bloomberg appeals to many Democrats as a deep-pocketed savior, problematically viewing him as “our Trump.” Yet the idea that Americans need another plutocrat to defend them represents a debased rather than realistic vision of both the Democratic Party and American democracy. In a very real sense, the oligarchy and concentration of wealth that so many Democrats identify as a mortal threat to this country are coming directly for the Democratic Party itself in the form of Michael Bloomberg, a man ready to resolve the party’s long-running struggle between working people and the wealthy in favor of the latter.
The challenge Bloomberg presents can be posed as a question of faith — the faith that Americans have in each other, their collective voice, and their capacity to forge their own future. Do we believe we can defend ourselves, or have we given up hope? Do we believe that the nation can be transformed into a land of equals, or do we believe it’s time to accept that the public square and economy have been taken over by the wealthiest among us? Do we trust each other to move the country into a future that will benefit all?