Dark Horse Stumbles
// The Flaws in Michael Bloomberg's Independent Candidacy
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is gearing up to add his name to the list of independent candidates for president of the United States. His predecessors include many well-known figures with diametrically-opposed political views. The election of 1948 featured Franklin Roosevelt's vice president Henry Wallace, who had become a great friend of Comrade Stalin and who made approving noises about the Soviet Union's Kolyma labor camp, which he visited during WWII. The independent contender in 1968 was also a Wallace – specifically, George Wallace, the segregationist governor of Alabama. The election roster in 1992 included the billionaire Ross Perot, who attracted 18.9% of the vote, making his campaign more successful than that of any other independent candidate. Despite their differences, however, these different candidates all share one thing in common: they all lost. And the same fate awaits Michael Bloomberg if he decides to throw his hat into the arena.
It is true that the authority of the Republican administration has imploded under the fallout from the Iraq War and that all of the Republican candidates in 2008 are doing their best to distance themselves as much as possible from the White House. It is also true that the Democrats are facing a unique situation: the top two spots among their party's candidates are occupied by the political wife of a former president with a famously meandering eye and by an African-American senator. This all makes finding a third-party alternative seem particularly tempting. But even all of these factors together cannot shake the foundation of America's traditional two-party system, with its professional nationwide party machines. Any "third candidate," even if he is sitting atop a billion dollars, would have to build up a network of activists from scratch and maintain discipline among a motley contingent of supporters. In addition, due to a lack of experience in nationwide campaigning, he will invariably make more mistakes than his mainstream opponents.
The textbook example is the campaign of Ross Perot, who picked as his running mate Vice Admiral James Stockdale, a highly-decorated Vietnam veteran who spent almost eight years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam. At first it seemed like a genius maneuver to attract the participation of such a morally-impeachable figure. Stockdale, however, for all of the respect that he commanded as a Navy hero, had no political experience and infamously opened a vice-presidential debate by saying, "Who am I? Why am I here?" In the aftermath of the debate, he was portrayed in the American media as a confused old man, and Perot's campaign suffered accordingly.
The last few years in America have seen an increase in the number of unusual, but ultimately successful, candidates in elections on several different levels. Nevertheless, it is highly unlikely that California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger or New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg could have won their posts without relying on the support of their parties' electoral machines. Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut won in the congressional elections last November as an independent candidate, but he had the distinction of already having served three terms as the state's Democratic senator.
Still, however, Mr. Bloomberg could have a serious role to play in the 2008 elections. Even if he loses, as a conservative candidate who is popular among Republicans his participation is likely to work in favor of the Democrats by splitting the Republican electorate. That was the case in 1992, when the candidacy of Ross Perot attracted the votes of many potential supporters of George H.W. Bush and aided Bill Clinton's victory for the Democrats. Now it may be Bloomberg who boosts Hillary Clinton into the White House. The question is whether he really wants his name to go down in history for that reason.
Alexei Makarkin, deputy general director of the Center for Political Technology
All the Article in Russian as of May 16, 2007
|
