Hey Everyone!
I'm writing this in mid-February, and it won't go live on this blog until April, so things may have substantially changed between now and then, but it's something I thought worth sharing because it picks at the idea of "Blue, no matter who," and I'm sure that won't have gone away by April. So, if it's a bit out of date, I apologize, but you might still consider it worth a read. Peace!
Bloomberg is Trump with his hair combed...
Yeah, yeah, I know. Thems fightin' words! This post is going to piss some people off, but I'm going to post it anyway. Because as much as the establishment is pushing the "Blue, no matter who" narrative -- though, I have to say they have a funny way of showing their commitment to that concept when they go on CNN or MSNBC to talk about Bernie Sanders. Funny how that works, isn't it? 🤔 -- policies actually do matter. "Blue, no matter who" is both a lazy and a counterproductive mindset when it comes to politics, because it encourages people to simply be loyal to a "team" rather than doing the work to determine if that "team" is really representing their interests.
Because, again, the only thing about politics that matters is not the color a candidate is flying or the letter after their name, but what policies they champion and what policies they oppose. Otherwise, a person's political affiliations are no more meaningful than their sports preferences. I think we can all agree, what policies are implemented affect far more people on a far more significant level than which athlete displays the most talent, or has the most luck, in playing a game. And, when it comes down to it, Bloomberg's policies really aren't a perceptible improvement over Trump's. Don't believe me? Well, let's take a look.
What's one of the first things any Democrat will complain about when it comes to Trump? His racism, right? Trump is putting brown people into concentration camps for committing the crime of being brown and ripping families apart in the process. That's horrible. Trump and every, single person involved in the conception and implementation of this injustice should be tried in international court for crimes against humanity and should spend the rest of their lives in prison. If you're looking for an argument against that, you'll not find one from me.
Now let's look at Bloomberg's record on race and human rights. Bloomberg was responsible for the Stop and Frisk policy that was implemented in NYC in the early 2000s. As a result of this policy, hundreds of thousands of American citizens were denied their Constitutional rights. Under then-Mayor Bloomberg's direction, NYC police officers stopped and detained people with no probable cause or due process, questioned them without offering them the benefit of legal counsel or reading them their Miranda rights, and frisked them without consent or a warrant authorizing them to do so. And, not so coincidentally, the vast majority of the people who were violated in this manner were people of color.
When questioned about the illegality of this policy and the fact that it overwhelmingly targeted minorities, Bloomberg excused himself by saying that minorities should have been targeted even more than they were because, in his opinion, racial minorities, particularly young, men of color, are responsible for the majority of violent crime and perpetually walk around armed. All evidence and statistical analysis to the contrary. He might as well just come out and call all racial minorities "rapists and criminals" and dispense with the pretense.
But we're all supposed to believe that Bloomberg would close Trump's concentration camps and start respecting the Fourth Amendment rights of immigrants when he didn't even respect the Fourth Amendment rights of American citizens? Just how stupid would we all have to be to buy that load of manure?
So, now that we've established there's no real difference between Trump and Bloomberg on racial issues, let's look at the next accusation Democrats like to lodge against Trump. Misogyny and the dismantling of the privacy laws that protect women's bodily autonomy. Well, Trump is certainly guilty of those charges. He has been recorded bragging about sexually assaulting women and has appointed two members of the corporately-owned, Christian Taliban -- one an accused rapist -- to the United States Supreme Court with the express intention of denying women their basic human rights. So, again, no argument on that.
Now, let's look at Bloomberg's record when it comes to women's rights. Bloomberg, like Trump, has been sued by women for sexual harassment. He has said that if women wanted to be admired for their brains, they'd go to the library, not Bloomingdale's. He is reported as telling some of his female employees the circumstances under which he would "do" them. And he has been accused of ordering female employees to get abortions because their maternity leave would inconvenience his business. But we're supposed to believe that Bloomberg respects women deeply, and he'll be very concerned with protecting women's rights and autonomy, right? Sure. Pull the other one.
Okay, so we've established that Bloomberg is no improvement over Trump on issues of race or misogyny, but how about the environment and climate change? Well, Bloomberg has publicly come out against the Green New Deal, and Greenpeace has given his policies a D+. The tricky thing about climate change, though, is that there's no real difference between a moderate approach, which is a standard that Bloomberg doesn't even meet, and Trump's approach. Because without immediate, sweeping change, this planet will become incapable of supporting human life and our species will cease to exist. So, we've already established there's no material difference between Trump and Bloomberg on this issue because unless Bloomberg was backing the most progressive proposals, he might as well not address the issue at all. But, in spite of the fact that there's no need to go on, there is more.
After the water crisis in Flint, MI was exposed and linked directly to Republican Governor, Rick Snyder's, corruption, Bloomberg continued to support Snyder. Bloomberg has also supported other climate-crisis-denying Republican candidates, like Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Scott Brown of Massachusetts. Why would Bloomberg support so many Republicans? Well, because he was one. And he continued to fundraise and donate to Republican members of Congress up through 2018. Which has to beg the question, why?
Well, that answer may be found in the policies Bloomberg opposes. Bloomberg is against a living wage minimum wage. He opposes this policy so much that when it passed the City Council in NYC, he vetoed and refused to implement it. And then he went to court -- not once, but twice -- to try to prevent the higher minimum wage from going into effect when his veto was overruled by the Council. Bloomberg also opposes such middle-class-friendly policies as Medicare For All and forgiving student loan and medical debt. So, again, when it comes to the financial issues that most affect working people, Bloomberg offers no appreciable improvement over Trump.
So, what about on the issue of interventionist wars? Well, unlike Trump, Bloomberg doesn't admit that the war in Iraq was a mistake. Bloomberg thinks the debacle in Iraq was a good thing. Why? Well, I don't know. It certainly wasn't good for regular Americans, and it was an unmitigated disaster for the Iraqi people. About the only ones the war in Iraq was good for are military contracting and military manufacturing corporations. They, and their investors, made billions of dollars. How does that connect back to Bloomberg? Again, I don't know. Because Bloomberg, like Trump, is refusing to release his tax returns.
Now, I'm sure the party loyalists are wringing their hands at this point and whining about how people can change. And, yes, people can change. But I've seen no evidence whatsoever that Bloomberg has changed. And there are two more things that concern me quite a bit. These two things are intertwined and tie directly back to that establishment propensity for defending and excusing Bloomberg.
There has been a lot of concern, sincere or not, expressed regarding Trump's undeniable authoritarian streak. Trump wants to be king. He's not interested in opposing viewpoints, he's openly hostile towards the concept of checks and balances, and he runs roughshod over the law and the Consitution at every opportunity. And, yet, say what you will about his efforts at becoming a tyrant, Trump, at least, did participate in the democratic process to obtain his party's nomination. He didn't skip the process and just buy it, as Bloomberg is trying to do. And we have the benefit of having a press that is at least nominally interested in reining in Trump's worst impulses. So, when he oversteps his bounds, they report on it and we, The People, at least hear about it.
Bloomberg, on the other hand, is a darling of the establishment. He has already bought the corporate media with his millions spent on campaign ads, so we can expect no assistance from the fourth estate in holding Bloomberg to account or controlling his tyrannical tendencies. And, as has already been discussed in this post, Bloomberg has tyrannical tendencies a-plenty.
I don't think there's much question that Bloomberg is more intelligent than Trump. And he's not as crass or vulgar as Trump. Like I said before, he's Trump with his hair combed. But those very superficial differences make Bloomberg all the more dangerous because of their substantive similarities. Where members of the political establishment and the corporate media at least voice opposition to Trump, they'll praise and help conceal Bloomberg's abuses of power. And Bloomberg, himself, is smart enough not to publicly expose, confess to, brag about, and discuss his crimes on Twitter. Unlike Trump. But being more successful at hiding crimes from the public is not the same thing as not being a criminal.
As the saying goes, actions speak louder than words, and for all the pretty rhetoric Bloomberg has been offering, of late, his behavior doesn't match. And I'm not in the market for any bridges. I believe Bloomberg represents an even greater threat to the nation and the planet than does Trump, and I
will not vote for either of them. If Bloomberg successfully buys the Democratic nomination, I will vote third-party. And I'm sure I'm not alone in this analysis. So, if you're one of those people who like to talk about candidates' "electability," maybe this is food for thought.
Peace!
