[lbo-talk] Bloomberg and City Govt in the US (was Freddy - even his supporters don't like him)

[Paul]

Doug H. citing me writes:
>Paul wrote:
>
>>I can certainly see "Ferrer isn't all that good" [NB he is the Democrat 
>>candidate].  But how can one say "Bloomberg isn't all that bad"?
>
>Aside from same-sex marriage, I doubt a Dem administration would have 
>behaved much differently on your top (or bottom) ten list. And Ferrer 
>holds great potential to be a profound embarrassment - he seems confused, 
>dissembling, and not very bright.

As I said, I make no case for Ferrer...But I still don't hear how that 
translates to good words for Bloomberg?

IMO, we need to be clear with people that they are now being offered a 
narrow choice among flavors of neo-liberalism (plus a rump group whose 
liberal rhetoric hasn't fully faded, larger in NYC than many places, and 
who opportunistically dodge in and out of neo-liberalism).  Our message is 
to broaden the options available and rely on the clearly reliable.

I could follow the logic in your lbo debate around support to Kerry - that 
his main opponent would move us towards barbarism.  But what is the logic 
of support to Bloomberg -- we might move towards incompetence?  Is that 
really the sort of threat that should make us take our eyes off the 
ball?  [Besides, remember that these superficial media images about 
"ability to govern" quickly switch - in the previous election Bloomberg's 
image was billionaire sexist with no relevant experience - that is before 
Bloomberg's super-expensive media blitz.  And at that time Ferrer was the 
primary candidate with City managerial experience and competence.]

Remember "the ball" is not support to Ferrer.  It is critique of municipal 
neo-liberalism.

FWIW my list of ten examples was deliberately easy -- all of them 
compatible with neo-liberalism and *already* enjoying substantial elite 
political support in NYC.  So it is no surprise (and no praise for 
Democrats) that mostly the examples are issues that even these Democrats 
*would* implement differently than Bloomberg.  In two examples they *may* 
have already succeeded by using their "blocking minority" role (the West 
Side land use and the transportation construction priorities).  In another 
example the Democratic City Council *did* use its very weak budget power to 
pass an alternative to the post 9/11 budget -- but it was blocked by 
Bloomberg.  In yet another example the City Democratic controlled State 
Assembly *did* pass a long term funding plan for the City schools -- but it 
was blocked by Governor Pataki, without objection from Bloomberg.  [Again, 
to be clear: this is no praise for NYC Democrats -- my list were examples 
where only the Bush wing of neo-liberalism shares Bloomberg's policies.]

Paul