I decided to read this article because Bloomberg is a sort of centrist, and I'm 
always curious about the possible negative consequences of pragmatism.

ronically, the article actually made me like him *more*. :-)

E

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/beware-the-paternalist-the-dark-side-of-mayor-bloombergs-philosophy/255138/

Beware the Paternalist: The Dark Side of Mayor Bloomberg's Philosophy

It shouldn't be surprising that a man intent on banning salt and trans fats is 
also complicit in "stop and frisk" and illegal spying on Muslims.


Reuters

Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the man atop New York's municipal government, is a 
centrist. An independent. A pragmatist. A man who holds himself above ideology. 
Says Cory Booker, the mayor of Newark, "He doesn't give a damn about party, 
because he's about progress." He even plays a prominent role in the 
non-partisan political movement No Labels. Would our polarized nation be better 
served if more politicians modeled themselves after the septuagenarian 
billionaire? 

Some people think so. There are two separate websites eager to draft him for a 
presidential run. Over the years, speculation about him seeking higher office 
has appeared in too many press outlets to chronicle. And he's managed to get 
elected three times in America's biggest city. In his ensuing terms in office, 
critics have maligned him as "Nanny Bloomberg," a moniker intended to mock his 
campaigns against salt, trans fats, outdoor smoking, sugary drinks, and food 
donations to homeless shelters that aren't first vetted for nutritional 
information. The libertarian objection to these policies might be summed up as 
follows: Even if these laws make New Yorkers safer, what gives government the 
right to restrict the freedom of its citizens when they aren't threatening or 
coercing or harming anyone save maybe themselves?

It's a question that's been posed to Bloomberg many times. "There are powers 
only governments can exercise, policies only governments can mandate and 
enforce, and results only governments can achieve," he once said. "To halt the 
worldwide epidemic of non-communicable diseases, governments at all levels must 
make healthy solutions the default social option. That is ultimately 
government's highest duty." It's a forthright answer: If the government can do 
something that makes people safer, it must. In fact, it has "no higher duty."

It's a philosophy a lot of liberals are happy to accept when applied to 
cigarettes, restaurant ingredients, and the like. But their tolerance for this 
mindset is inseparable from its darker manifestations. In the press, Bloomberg 
isn't nearly the bogeyman that Rudy Giuliani was during his stint as mayor, but 
that doesn't mean that his record on civil liberties and minority rights isn't 
deeply suspect. The New York Civil Liberties Union explains what is perhaps the 
most problematic policy of his tenure. "The police are stopping hundreds of 
thousands of law abiding New Yorkers every year, and the vast majority are 
black and Latino," the group notes on its "Stop and Frisk" issue page. "More 
than 4 million innocent New Yorkers were subjected to police stops and street 
interrogations from 2004 through 2011, and that black and Latino communities 
continue to be the overwhelming target of these tactics. Nearly nine out of 10 
stopped-and-frisked New Yorkers have been completely innocent, according to the 
NYPD's own reports." It isn't every mayor that presides over the harassment of 
millions of innocent people.

More recently, it has come to light that the NYPD under Mayor Bloomberg has 
engaged in systematic, secret, illegal spying on many innocent citizens -- some 
of them outside the NYPD's jurisdiction! -- simply because they were Muslim 
Americans. That initiative, reminiscent of a police state, is more alarming and 
objectionable than the move to restrict salt and trans fats in the city. But 
the line separating those policies isn't nearly as clear as liberal 
paternalists want to believe.     

Mayor Bloomberg isn't the kind of guy who asks himself, before taking action, 
"Does government have a right to do this?" Instead, he asks himself, "Is this 
going to make people safer?" That is the underlying logic of nannying, stop and 
frisk, and illegal spying on Muslims. Do I think it'll make New Yorkers safer? 
Then government must do it. It's a brand of "non-ideological pragmatism" better 
suited to Singapore than the United States, yet because it isn't implicated in 
the culture wars -- because both Republicans and Democrats are willing to 
transgress against minority rights so long as the people disproportionately 
affected are poor or black or Muslim -- Bloomberg is lauded for his spirit of 
centrism and reelected in America's flagship blue city. As one defender of 
Bloomberg and the New York police commissioner wrote to the New York Daily 
News, "War does not always make allowances of convenience. The Muslim community 
should be thankful that its members are not placed in internment camps. After 
all, they, too, are being protected from attack." What a pragmatic, 
ideology-free assessment!

Thank goodness the prospect of Bloomberg ascending to the White House is slim, 
for it isn't difficult to see where his disregard for liberty and limits on 
government would lead. He's already on record favoring a national fingerprint 
and DNA database. His embrace of whatever steps he regards as making the 
citizenry safer is indistinguishable from the Dick Cheney-John Yoo approach to 
balancing liberty and security. And he is, unsurprisingly, a drug warrior to 
boot. 


A sound rule of thumb, for future reference, is that a man brazen enough to 
restrict the amount of salt chefs can use in their cooking is never going to 
stop there. Liberty is best served by rejecting the paternalistic, 
ends-justify-the-means approach to public life as soon as it arises. You never 
can tell what someone who speaks that way in public is telling the police to do 
in secret, because he's shown everyone that he's too "pragmatic" to worry about 
whether he's violating their rights and has no principled aversion to deciding 
what's best for everyone else.




-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

Reply via email to