By Ben Brockman
In the year 1901, on a warm September day, two bullets from the gun of a young anarchist struck President William McKinley in the chest. Eight days later, McKinley succumbed to his injuries and passed away, leaving his vice president, Teddy Roosevelt, in the oval office. With his cowboyish swagger, “big stick” diplomacy and trust-busting brand of populism, Teddy became immensely popular across the nation, winning the 1904 election by a margin larger than that in any contested election beforehand. In 1908, Roosevelt’s protégé, William Howard Taft, captured the White House, proving that American’s love affair with Teddy was still very much alive. Upon his return from an African safari, Roosevelt was disappointed to find his successor’s presidency embroiled in scandal and decided to throw his name into the ring in 1912. When the Republican convention decided to stick with Taft as the nominee, Roosevelt walked out; later that year, he founded the Progressive Party in order to make a third party run. In the 1912 election, Roosevelt and Taft split the Republican vote, handing Democrat Woodrow Wilson the presidency. One of the four presidents on Mount Rushmore and the namesake of the teddy bear, Roosevelt received only 27 percent of the popular vote. He is the most successful third party candidate in the history of the United States presidential election.
The 2016 presidential election has already proven itself to be different from any in history. The rise of hardline conservative Ted Cruz, megalomaniac billionaire Donald Trump and self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders is shaping up to make 2016 the most divisive presidential election since the Civil War. Sanders, as a self-proclaimed “democratic socialist,” is easily the furthest to the left a serious presidential candidate has been in the history of the United States. Cruz has the support of the far right and evangelicals, while his rival Trump’s populist campaign has attracted working class Americans, those unhappy with the current status quo in Washington and those concerned with the future of the economy. More mainstream Republican Marco Rubio, the chosen candidate of just 11 percent of Republicans in a recent poll, is being largely ignored by voters and establishment Democrat Hillary Clinton is losing ground, seeing her lead over the more radical Sanders growing smaller with each passing day. This increasing partisanship might allow for someone to run up the middle, in the lane left open by polarizing candidates like Cruz and Sanders. Who might be the perfect candidate to take advantage of this opening?
“The 2016 presidential election has already proven itself to be different from any in history.”
Meet Michael Bloomberg, self-made billionaire and three-term mayor of New York City. It was recently reported that Mr. Bloomberg has formed a committee to explore his chances were he to make an independent run. He is reportedly disturbed by what he calls “extremist rhetoric” coming from candidate Cruz and Mr. Trump’s lack of a filter, as well as the socialist views of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton’s “leftward turn” in response to her primary opponent. Bloomberg is by-and-large socially liberal. He is in favor of same-sex marriage, which, although opposed by the majority of Republican presidential candidates, aligns with the views of 32 percent of those identifying as Republicans (up 15 percent from a decade ago), 64 percent of those calling themselves moderates and the vast majority of liberals. The Wall Street billionaire has made calls for stricter gun control laws – a stance which could potentially lose him centrist Republican voters. However, many Republicans as well as gun owners have come out in support of President Obama’s plan to reduce gun violence. He has also come out in support of amnesty for illegal immigrants, another view potentially unpopular with prospective voters on the right. However, under the immigration plan proposed by Republican front-runner Donald Trump, a form of amnesty would be granted to immigrants without criminal records, so Bloomberg’s stance is far from unique. Bloomberg is also in favor of abortion rights and increased environmental legislation. The notable exception to his liberal social views is his more conservative views on policing, a hot button issue as of late.
Although he scores few points among Republicans in terms of identity politics, Bloomberg hopes to make up for his lack of conservative appeal in the social arena with his grasp on economic policy and his stance on terrorism. With the recent turmoil in the financial markets and the fluctuation in the strength of the dollar, the economy may soon rise to the forefront of the election. A former Wall Streeter with a degree from Harvard Business School, Bloomberg characterizes himself as a fiscal conservative. As mayor of New York City, Bloomberg turned the city’s $5 billion deficit into a $4 billion surplus. Although it is worth noting that he raised property taxes in order to achieve this surplus, Bloomberg’s balancing of New York’s budget is relevant because the United States ran a $439 million budget deficit last year, bringing our national debt to a staggering $18.9 trillion. Originally a supporter of the War in Iraq, Bloomberg has been called “hawkish” on foreign policy. Foreign policy and terrorism have been important factors in this election since day one, thanks in part to the lack of popular support for the Iran nuclear deal and the rise of ISIS, but they have come to the forefront in a new way in the wake of the November 13 attacks in Paris. Elected mayor of New York City in the direct aftermath of 9/11 and currently on Al-Qaeda’s hit list, Bloomberg would likely take a strong stance against terrorism.
“He has been lampooned by Republicans for his ‘nanny state’ tendencies…He also takes flak from Democrats for his history and connections on Wall Street…”
Currently an independent, the former mayor has been a member of both major parties in the past – the Democratic Party until 2001, and the Republican Party from 2001 to 2007. He has been lampooned by Republicans for his “nanny state” tendencies, most notably his ban on the sale of sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces, which was recently struck down by the New York Supreme Court as unconstitutional. This combined with his views on gun control will lose him votes among conservatives opposed to the expansion of “big government.” He also takes flak from Democrats for his history and connections on Wall Street, a street which has remained unpopular among many ever since the 2007/08 collapse and the ensuing recession. His knowledge of the financial industry may wind up being an asset, however; many candidates promising to take on the big banks have little to no understanding of the inner workings of this complex industry and may not be able to see the potentially disastrous effects of well-intentioned new regulation. He is also criticized by many for his views on freer trade with China despite its protectionist policies and currency manipulation.
Mr. Bloomberg’s chances are strongly contingent on whether or not Hillary Clinton receives the Democratic nomination. Although her lead over Bernie Sanders is still comfortable, it has been declining since Sanders announced his campaign in late May of 2015. In addition, Clinton is under investigation by the FBI for her illegal use of a private email server – an investigation which took an interesting turn when the inspector general for United States intelligence agencies claimed that her private emails contained information he considers to be “above the level of top secret.” Were she to be indicted, Sanders would likely win the nomination, sending many more moderate Democrats into Bloomberg’s welcoming arms. Were Trump to be the Republican nominee, many centrist, business-minded Republicans may see Bloomberg as a less obnoxious Trump, since they share the same success in business and have similar economic ideas. It is important to note that many of these business-minded voters are concentrated in large metropolitan areas. That would be to his detriment in the Electoral College system, which is already stacked against third party candidates. Were Cruz to be the nominee, Bloomberg would likely receive the votes of many moderate Republicans skeptical of Cruz’s chances in a general election and terrified of a Sanders presidency. A poll commissioned by the business magnate found that he would receive only 13 percent of the vote in a contest between Clinton and Trump. He conducted similar polls in 2008 and 2012 and determined that he had little to no chance of victory. It is important to note, however, that 45 percent of participants in the 2016 poll had never heard of Bloomberg. Lack of name recognition would be an easy problem for him to solve, as he has claimed that he is willing to spend up to $1 billion of his $41 billion fortune on his campaign. If he runs, will he have a chance of reaching the Oval Office or will he – in the fashion of Teddy Roosevelt and Ross Perot before him – take enough votes from one party (likely the Democrats) to secure victory for the other? It remains to be seen whether or not an aging businessman from New York can do what Roosevelt could not, but one thing is clear: the rules of the game have changed. If he runs, Bloomberg may be the last shining hope for the American moderate, a class which has found itself increasingly under attack from both sides. He may finally be able to solve the least discussed but most pervasive problem in American politics: blind partisanship and an inability to broker compromise.