New York City has mayoral term limits. Mayor Bloomberg (I-NYC) served his two four-year terms. (He had been a Republican, but it is believed that he could not have won the first term in this overwhelming Democratic city.) Being a powerful billionaire, he orchestrated a change to city law that enabled him to run a third four-year term. After all, he alone could guide NYC through this rough economic crisis. The court agreed. Mayor Bloomberg spent over $100 million of his own money against his Democratic challenger, William Thompson Jr., winning the race by a narrow margin of only 5 percentage points.
Of course, Mayor Bloomberg probably doesn't care about the percentage points; he seems to care more about power. A win is a win is a win. But is it not arrogant of him to think that New York City needs him more than any other, especially when the geniuses of Wall Street nearly brought the country and indeed the world to the brink of financial collapse? Grant it, I don't know of the job Mayor Bloomberg is doing in NYC. I am not among his constituients. But I would have probably not voted for him strictly on principle. I'm utterly turned off by anyone who uses their money and influence to change laws for their personal benefit.
With over $100 million spent on a campaign, not by the donations of the people that exercise their choice, but by a supposed politician's will to power, is this the best form of democracy?
No comments:
Post a Comment