Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
REVOLT OF THE HAS-BEENS.
In a move that's roiling the political world David Broder's column, a crew of ancient has-beens is threatening to support Mike Bloomberg's run for the presidency if the current crop of candidates don't spell out their plans to create a "government of national unity." Digby says much of what needs to be said here. But her eloquent outrage underplays the almost charming mix of naivete and self-deception underlying this cozy enterprise. In his article on the threat, David Broder says:
The list of acceptances suggests that the group could muster the financial and political firepower to make the threat of such a candidacy real. Others who have indicated that they plan to attend the one-day session include William S. Cohen, a former Republican senator from Maine and defense secretary in the Clinton administration; Alan Dixon, a former Democratic senator from Illinois; Bob Graham, a former Democratic senator from Florida; Jim Leach, a former Republican congressman from Iowa; Susan Eisenhower, a political consultant and granddaughter of former president Dwight D. Eisenhower; David Abshire, president of the Center for the Study of the Presidency; and Edward Perkins, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
Hey look! It's a bunch of people who don't matter! What constituency does Susan Eisenhower control? What sort of leverage does Jim Leach -- who was beaten in the 2006 election -- wield? Does an anxious nation really turn its eyes to Edward Perkins?
Of course not. This set of elderly white eminences can count on affection from a small group of DC's political elite, and is mistaking that recognition for actual power. Alan Dixon and William Cohen do not have the clout to themselves pass legislation, nor lift the objections of the forces impeding reform. What they do have is David Broder's home phone number, and so can expect a laudatory column detailing their efforts. But this, right here, is the peak of their power. And that's the problem. One could imagine a political movement dedicated to a more functional vision of governance and willing to apply real pressure, both financial and political, to those in the system who insist on obstructing needed reforms. It would be an interest group for reform, just as there now exist interest groups for lower taxes, and less regulation, and all the rest. The model exists, and with sufficient money and energy, could be easily adapted to good government concerns. But that movement would need the buy-in of existing political actors, tangible constituencies, corporate backers, and a ruthless vision. It would need to be a long-term -- dare I say Leninist? -- strategy for changing the system.
This, however, is frivolity. It's old actors wishing they were still in the biz, and convincing Variety to cover their cut-rate production at the local community center. Gridlock, for one thing, exists in the Congress, but this effort is focused on the promotion of a presidential candidate. So it immediately misses its own point. There is no potential executive, in either party, who would not like to manifest their agenda by sheer force of will. Mike Bloomberg will be as stymied as Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney, as you don't get a doctor's note exempting you from the legislative process just because you ran, or even governed, as an independent. Ask Arnold Schwarzenegger, who couldn't get a single Republican vote for his centrist health plan, if you don't believe me.
Worse, it's attempting to solve a series of structural political problems through the application of a single charismatic leader. Mike Bloomberg may thrill the founders of Unity 2008. but invoking his name does not end the filibuster or reduce its ability to give Senators representing less than 20 percent of the population full veto power over the legislative process. Nor do his good looks change the way campaigns are financed in this country, the methods lobbyists use to become valued friends and allies of politicians, or the cowardice of a media that refuses to accurately assess and report on the forces blocking reform.
These would-be unifiers are furious at the rules, but lack the strategy or vision to challenge the current order. When the only tool you've got is a self-interested billionaire, every problem needs to look solvable by the application of a self-interested billionaire. So what is actually a problem of power and structure is rhetorically reframed as a matter of partisanship and disunity. A failure of rules is thus recast as a failure of personalities, and thus rendered vulnerable to the arrival of a newer, better personality.
But an absence of public spirit and dearth of Mike Bloomberg is, of course, not the problem. The rules are. One could imagine a movement dedicated to better governance and a more democratic political system. But that would require an organizing strategy that focused on structural impediments to legislative change and proposed a series of realistic alternatives to the current system. Instead, what we've got are some one-time contenders aching to hear the roar of the crowd just one more time, and who are pretending a billionaire's potential vanity candidacy is, in some way, an answer to their high-minded concerns. But it's not. His candidacy, and their support, is powered by the same toxic mixture of careerism and PR and elitism and discomfort with power and faux-civility as our current system. Indeed, that's all we're being offered here: Our current system, with all its flaws, but a slightly higher chance that these retired pols will net a cabinet position. Color me excited. That, I think, is the sort of unifying message this country can really rally around.
Image used under a Creative Commons license from Flickr user RSEanes.
COMMENTS (15)
You nailed it, Ezra. I'm so happy you're back. I see that a vacation did not dull your edge.
Posted by: Katherine | January 1, 2008 2:39 PM
Well said. The one thing I would add is that Mike Bloomberg is neither good-looking nor charismatic, so he isn't the person who is in a position to execute this even if one believed it could be reasonably executed.
Posted by: Sam L. | January 1, 2008 2:48 PM
It's old actors wishing they were still in the biz, and convincing Variety to cover their cut-rate production at the local community center.
MeeeOWWW! That was beautiful.
Also, what Sam L. said: Bloomberg is in no way "charismatic." His demeanor is more one of bland competence, which, coming after the temperamental flamboyance of Rudy, came as a relief to many here in NYC. The notion that he could whip up any kind of passion beyond the Beltway crowd is nothing short of laughable.
Posted by: Uncle Kvetch | January 1, 2008 3:23 PM
A cogent analysis, Ezra, as usual. Happy New Year!
What worries me, though, is this: what if no amount of cogent analysis derails these people? Is Unity 08 a decoy, meant to drain independent votes from whatever Dem wins the nod, so that odds are the Dem loses, whether to Unity or Republican doesn't matter to these guys? They may not need a constituency if they've got the bucks.
Posted by: Champ Champers | January 1, 2008 3:55 PM
This bunch is just a front for corporate privateers. They have no pull with either party to reduce gridlock in DC, but there is a lot a president can do by decree and appointment to benefit corporate cronies.
Posted by: CParis | January 1, 2008 4:34 PM
It seems to me that the best way to approach the question of what effect a Bloomberg or other "plague on both your houses" centrist candidacy would have, is to ask which 2004 candidate's supporters would be more likely to support this kind of thing. I don't think very many Kerry voters would be willing to take the chance of electing another Republican.
Democratic-leaning independents have had a lot of occasion since 2000 to think about casting protest votes at the presidential level. But at least 5% of the voting population, according to party ID polls, have left the Republican party since 2004--that's about 6 Million Bush voters.
Where are they going? In the absence of a serious 3d party candidacy I think they'd be more likely than not to return at least temporarily to their Republican allegiance. But a Bloomberg, and/or a Paul, candidacy would give them the opportunity to kick the George W. Bush Republican party in the shins without the necessity of voting Democratic.
So, yeah, I'm all for it. Anything that extinguishes any influence by Sam Nunn, Chuck Robb, Al the Pal Dixon, and David Boren in the next Democratic administration is a plus in my book. And I'm also happy to see John Danforth, Christine Todd Whitman, Chuck Hagel and Bill Cohen severing their ties to the Republican party. It removes the worst from our party, and the best from theirs.
Posted by: Ron Thompson | January 1, 2008 4:59 PM
As I asked elsewhere, where the hell are Rudman and Lamm? Come on, boys, get on board! You don't want to miss the Train to Nowhere.
Posted by: Henderstock | January 1, 2008 5:35 PM
It isn't a full circle jerk until Jon Breaux shows up
Posted by: Rob | January 1, 2008 8:28 PM
Well, I don't see how they could have missed the centrism that Hillary and Obama are dishing up-- maybe they're worried warring Edwards is doing better than we think. If I were a rich, moderate-sounding Republican, I'd be tickled purple with the other two.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 1, 2008 10:00 PM
I like Bob Graham, but bless his heart he's never been very helpful. He fussed a bit after he left the Senate about what the Bush Administration was trying to get away with, and that's it.
Ezra's right: The silverbacks want a little more attention, so they'll stomp and grunt and fling feces around until they realize only Broder is watching. And come to think of it, Broder's just another silverback, too. Poor things.
Posted by: Winslow | January 2, 2008 10:34 AM
This set of elderly white eminences can count on affection from a small group of DC's political elite, and is mistaking that recognition for actual power.
Um, a small Broderesque group of DC's political elite weakened Bill Clinton's ability to govern, was crucial to George W. Bush's victories in 2000 and 2004, and currently has a grossly disproportionate effect on the 2008 presidential race. So I think these has-beens can be forgiven for their mistake.
Posted by: mds | January 2, 2008 3:05 PM
I'm surprised that Broder's list didn't include venerable eminences grises such as Vernon Jordan, so as to, you know, add a little pepper to the salt.
Posted by: daniel sachs | January 2, 2008 3:40 PM
Funny, none of those has-beens had anything to say during the rise of the Republican right.
Posted by: Col Bat Guano | January 2, 2008 3:49 PM
It's all sound and fury signifying nothing until they get the volunteers on the ground circulating petitions to put their candidate on the ballot in 50 states. I can't see them having the volunteers needed, so this is where Bloomburg's first $500M to $1B will be spent. Moderates are moderates because they lack passion. A lot of leaders and few followers.
Posted by: bc | January 2, 2008 5:08 PM
I have to second Champ Campers. And I’ll go a step farther; this scares the hell out of me.
If Bloomberg gets on the ballot in all 50 states (he certainly has the money to pay top dollar for signatures) he’s bound to get votes from the “I just can’t understand why we can’t all get along” voter who flunked Civics 001. In case anyone missed it those are Obama’s supporters. I can see “Democrats” voting for Bloomberg who are upset because Clinton’s the nominee or that Obama’s the nominee or that Edwards is the nominee.
I can’t agree that a socially liberal Bloomberg gets much of any Republican votes. I can see some progressives mistaking Bloomberg’s socially liberal attitudes for actual liberalism.
Posted by: cal1942 | January 3, 2008 2:07 AM