First, let us deal with Bloomberg's gimpy straw man. No serious Republican
or Democrat says anything of the sort. Rather, what partisans usually say is
that their party can be trusted more than the other party to move the
country in the right direction. Bill Clinton borrowed generously from
Republican policy initiatives - remember welfare reform? - and so has
President Bush on such issues as education reform and Medicare. Democrats
and Republicans may not brag about co-opting the opposition's positions, but
that doesn't mean they aren't compromising.
Bloomberg's dream of a New Politics transcending partisan bickering is
deeply seductive. Who wouldn't want to live in a society where government
just did good things without interference from special interests and other
forces of selfishness? A big part of John F. Kennedy's appeal was his claim
to represent a New Politics based on what Bloomberg now calls "managerial
competence." As JFK said: "Most of the problems ... that we now face, are
technical problems, are administrative problems," best left to the best and
brightest, starting with JFK himself.
That was nonsense then, and it's nonsense now. Calling it "managerial
competence" won't make political decision-making any less political.
Moreover, political parties aren't the source of our disagreements, but the
vehicles by which we express them. For much of American history, political
parties weren't so ideologically distinct. Some of the most passionate
liberals - aka Progressives - were Republicans, and some of the most ardent
conservatives were Democrats. But we still had political disagreements.
Indeed, the Founders didn't really anticipate parties at all. But they did
expect what Alexander Hamilton called "factions," recognizing that our
democratic republic couldn't work without them. Oh, and every third-grader
is supposed to understand that Congress and the White House were designed to
compete with each other. Just Google "separation of powers" if you don't
believe me.
Democracy isn't about agreement, but disagreement. People have different
interests and ideals. Getting rid of parties - or "transcending" them -
won't get rid of disagreements. To believe otherwise is the height of
utopianism.
Obviously, Bloomberg is no Mussolini or Hitler. He's not even a dime-store
JFK. But if this "man of action" thinks he has the "managerial competence"
to take the politics out of politics, he's as utopian as they come and
deserves to be president of no place.