Michael Bloomberg has been a good mayor-a very good mayor, a font of often extremely good ideas that he has helped bring to city government and to the city. For the most part, the residents of this city are lucky to have had him as the chief executive these past seven years, and future mayors will be lucky to have the example of the Bloomberg years to have to live up to themselves.
Though there are failings and blind spots to his leadership over the last seven years, overall, there are many good results.
The question now is whether these are the kind of ends which justify Bloomberg's means. He has already shown that he does not really believe in the democratizing spending limits of the campaign finance system. Now the twice-approved term limits law, the other cornerstone of the democratized political process in New York, is likewise apparently not worth his attention.
A referendum would be impractical, he says, after waiting until after the deadline passed to get one on this November's ballot to openly make up his mind. Voters should be free to have as many choices as they want on the ballot, he says, after saying that he still believes term limits are a good idea, just as long as they set in after three terms, not two.
So the Council has a stark choice. Members will be tempted to vote themselves another term. This is understandable. Many of them would like to abolish term limits altogether, and many of them have long advocated for an extension to three terms instead of two. There are those among them who look forward to next year-some out of selfishness, some out of a commitment to public service-as the unfair end of their careers in politics.
But only those deluding themselves will be able to argue that this is anything but a referendum on Bloomberg. Those who vote to extend the limits are entitled to believe that he should continue in office-and there are many reasons to feel that way-but they should be clear and forthright about what they are doing. They took most of a year to debate congestion pricing, the last big idea brought forward by the mayor, have held countless hearings on many bills that would more drastically affect the lives of New Yorkers, rather than the lives and salaries of the people in City Hall.
The act on the term limits extension and, in the weeks and months leading up to the final vote, on how they react to the accelerated pace with which the mayor wants to move the bill will be very revealing.
The assumptions Bloomberg and Quinn have made that they will quickly win this vote-and then re-election to their current posts next year-and the pragmatic reality that they may well be right on both counts is exactly why we need term limits in the first place: to diffuse concentrations of power and prevent assurances of continued control.
In the meantime, Bloomberg should finally appoint that charter commission he said he would back in his State of the City address earlier this year, and give them the term limits question as a top priority. Perhaps more importantly, he should pledge that if given the opportunity to run for another term, he will donate no more than the maximum spending cap allowed by the Campaign Finance Board to his own campaign. After seven years in office, he should not try to make the case that he still needs to drown the campaign in his millions in order to break through.
Council members who are really opposed to changing term limits should unequivocally rule out running for re-election next year even if given the chance. Those who declared themselves, or all but declared themselves, as candidates for other offices who have not said they will make those runs next year regardless, even if facing an incumbent, need to make themselves clear.
Term limits should not be changed, but if they must be, they should be changed by public referendum, and not in a way that affects those currently in office, on either side of City Hall. New Yorkers made themselves clear on this issue just 12 years ago. The Council and the mayor need to listen, no matter the current economic situation, no matter the recent changes of heart of a few influential billionaires.
A crisis is exactly the wrong time to try to disrupt the democratic process. Next year's elections need to go on as regularly scheduled, with New Yorkers given the choice of whom they think should be put in charge of the city, just as they were able to following the Sept. 11 attacks.
That is a gamble. But it is the essential gamble of democracy. And if Bloomberg and the others in city government scheduled to be booted by term limits do not like how New Yorkers roll their dice in 2009, they are welcome to come back in 2013 and run again.
Though there are failings and blind spots to his leadership over the last seven years, overall, there are many good results.
The question now is whether these are the kind of ends which justify Bloomberg's means. He has already shown that he does not really believe in the democratizing spending limits of the campaign finance system. Now the twice-approved term limits law, the other cornerstone of the democratized political process in New York, is likewise apparently not worth his attention.
A referendum would be impractical, he says, after waiting until after the deadline passed to get one on this November's ballot to openly make up his mind. Voters should be free to have as many choices as they want on the ballot, he says, after saying that he still believes term limits are a good idea, just as long as they set in after three terms, not two.
So the Council has a stark choice. Members will be tempted to vote themselves another term. This is understandable. Many of them would like to abolish term limits altogether, and many of them have long advocated for an extension to three terms instead of two. There are those among them who look forward to next year-some out of selfishness, some out of a commitment to public service-as the unfair end of their careers in politics.
But only those deluding themselves will be able to argue that this is anything but a referendum on Bloomberg. Those who vote to extend the limits are entitled to believe that he should continue in office-and there are many reasons to feel that way-but they should be clear and forthright about what they are doing. They took most of a year to debate congestion pricing, the last big idea brought forward by the mayor, have held countless hearings on many bills that would more drastically affect the lives of New Yorkers, rather than the lives and salaries of the people in City Hall.
The act on the term limits extension and, in the weeks and months leading up to the final vote, on how they react to the accelerated pace with which the mayor wants to move the bill will be very revealing.
The assumptions Bloomberg and Quinn have made that they will quickly win this vote-and then re-election to their current posts next year-and the pragmatic reality that they may well be right on both counts is exactly why we need term limits in the first place: to diffuse concentrations of power and prevent assurances of continued control.
In the meantime, Bloomberg should finally appoint that charter commission he said he would back in his State of the City address earlier this year, and give them the term limits question as a top priority. Perhaps more importantly, he should pledge that if given the opportunity to run for another term, he will donate no more than the maximum spending cap allowed by the Campaign Finance Board to his own campaign. After seven years in office, he should not try to make the case that he still needs to drown the campaign in his millions in order to break through.
Council members who are really opposed to changing term limits should unequivocally rule out running for re-election next year even if given the chance. Those who declared themselves, or all but declared themselves, as candidates for other offices who have not said they will make those runs next year regardless, even if facing an incumbent, need to make themselves clear.
Term limits should not be changed, but if they must be, they should be changed by public referendum, and not in a way that affects those currently in office, on either side of City Hall. New Yorkers made themselves clear on this issue just 12 years ago. The Council and the mayor need to listen, no matter the current economic situation, no matter the recent changes of heart of a few influential billionaires.
A crisis is exactly the wrong time to try to disrupt the democratic process. Next year's elections need to go on as regularly scheduled, with New Yorkers given the choice of whom they think should be put in charge of the city, just as they were able to following the Sept. 11 attacks.
That is a gamble. But it is the essential gamble of democracy. And if Bloomberg and the others in city government scheduled to be booted by term limits do not like how New Yorkers roll their dice in 2009, they are welcome to come back in 2013 and run again.
