Mayor Michael Bloomberg of NYC wrote an op-ed a few days ago about the need for bipartisanship. Here’s a taste:
More of the same won’t do, on the economy or any other issue. We need innovative ideas, bold action and courageous leadership. That’s not just empty rhetoric, and the idea that we have the ability to solve our toughest problems isn’t some pie-in-the-sky dream. In New York, working with leaders from both parties and mayors and governors from across the country, we’ve demonstrated that an independent approach really can produce progress on the most critical issues, including the economy, education, the environment, energy, infrastructure and crime.
I believe that an independent approach to these issues is essential to governing our nation — and that an independent can win the presidency. I listened carefully to those who encouraged me to run, but I am not — and will not be — a candidate for president. I have watched this campaign unfold, and I am hopeful that the current campaigns can rise to the challenge by offering truly independent leadership. The most productive role that I can serve is to push them forward, by using the means at my disposal to promote a real and honest debate.
In the weeks and months ahead, I will continue to work to steer the national conversation away from partisanship and toward unity; away from ideology and toward common sense; away from sound bites and toward substance. And while I have always said I am not running for president, the race is too important to sit on the sidelines, and so I have changed my mind in one area. If a candidate takes an independent, nonpartisan approach — and embraces practical solutions that challenge party orthodoxy — I’ll join others in helping that candidate win the White House.
The changes needed in this country are straightforward enough, but there are always partisan reasons to take an easy way out. There are always special interests that will fight against any challenge to the status quo. And there are always those who will worry more about their next election than the health of our country.
These forces that prevent meaningful progress are powerful, and they exist in both parties. I believe that the candidate who recognizes that the party is over — and begins enlisting all of us to clean up the mess — will be the winner this November, and will lead our country to a great and boundless future.
Are the “changes needed in this country…straightforward enough”? Really? Has Bloomberg ever listened to Democrats and Republicans, or conservatives and liberals? Ignoring that this is Compulsive Centrist Disorder at its finest in that Bloomberg says absolutely nothing, once again, the Mighty Centrists do not understand that people disagree profoundly about stuff, and sometimes those disagreements are not reconcilable. Consider Social Security. You have a Republican Party which believes that privatization is the solution (to a non-existent problem) and a Democratic Party which, on a good day, does not. Do we split the difference, and do partial privatization?
Or let’s consider a war. Do we kinda invade? After all the Compulsive Centrist bromides, you actually have to propose something, and if one has a core set of principles, some proposals are really awful, while someone else’s principles leads her or him to a different conclusion.
This is why we have politics, and not love-ins.