Bloomberg Beyond Ideology
This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.

One week from today, when New Yorkers go to the polling booth, they will see on the first line of the ballot Michael R. Bloomberg running for mayor as a candidate of both the Republican and Liberal parties. Two lines below, his name will appear beside the Independence Party label.
This might come as a surprise to voters accustomed to the mayor’s avalanche of television ads to date, in which he has studiously avoided describing his political affiliation, preferring instead to stress his – lower case – independence.
In contrast, Fernando Ferrer seems to place much of his faith in the “Democrat” brand and has tried to tie the mayor to President Bush. But after a debate in which the mayor approvingly quoted Al Sharpton – and Conservative Party candidate Tom Ognibene was excluded altogether – it raises a question about the relevance of political labels in New York and the state of the city’s once vibrant third parties.
Mr. Bloomberg’s statement to the New York Post last week that he would be open to endorsing a Democratic successor in 2009 only pressed the point. At a time when partisan warfare is a parlor game in most of America, might one of Mayor Bloomberg’s legacies be inaugurating a post-ideological politics in New York, in which a combination of cash and competence trumps traditional political affiliation?
New York has long been home to the most vibrant collection of third parties in the United States, led by the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party. The Conservatives were formed to organize dissatisfaction with the liberal drift of the 1960s Republican Party led by Nelson Rockefeller, John Lindsay, and Jacob Javits. They succeeded in electing James Buckley to the U.S. Senate in 1970 and cross-endorsed successful statewide candidates such as Governor Pataki. The Liberal Party was formed in 1944 to protest Communist influence over the American Labor Party, re-elected Mayor John Lindsay on their line in 1969 and successfully cross-endorsed Republican Rudolph Giuliani. The pattern was set – Conservatives kept the state Republican Party hewing right, while the Liberals endorsed both moderate Republicans and Democrats.
But it is significant that the last time both parties elected individuals to significant posts on their line alone was the cartoonishly polarized era of 1969-1970. They’ve provided useful clues to the complexities behind candidates since, but their broader influence has diminished. In 2002, the Liberals even lost their exclusive ballot line, along with the Green Party and the Right-to-Life Party. Today, the Conservatives and Liberals can count roughly 24,000 registered party members in New York City. The Working Families Party has emerged to represent the far left, but can count only 10,000 plus members citywide – while the Independence Party has grown from 4,000 to 97,000 members citywide over the past ten years. All this has occurred against a backdrop of a 300% increase in the number of non-affiliated voters in New York City. Michael Bloomberg – the ultimate RINO, or Republican In Name Only – is a symbol and symptom of these de-aligned times.
The real possibility that the mayor – if reelected, as expected – could be the highest ranking elected Republican in New York State come 2007 is reason to give some partisan warriors cause to pause. I spoke to Conservative Party leader Michael Long about the odd prospect and he was quick to say, “I think the mayor’s a nice guy, I really do, but I consider him a Republican by convenience only…the philosophy I believe Mike Bloomberg has is of a liberal Democrat.” As proof, Mr. Long listed Bloomberg’s support of abortion and his increase in property taxes, while praising most of the mayor’s efforts at education reform. “Both Freddy and the mayor – if you watched the debate – were clearly singing the same tune about how government could do more for people, not how it could become smaller and more efficient,” Mr. Long said.
Clearly Michael Bloomberg is no conservative; the attempted resurrection of the Liberal Party label is a far better fit for his politics. A former parks commissioner, Henry Stern, has been trying to spearhead a restoration of the once-proud party against the odds. The Bloomberg candidacy and an expected endorsement of Eliot Spitzer for governor in 2006 are the first steps in the long journey back.
“It is not easy to form a political party in New York State,” Mr. Stern said, “The complex election laws are written to minimize participation.”
“If you’re on the left you’re supported by the unions and if you’re on the right you’re supported by the bosses – but if you’re a centrist party it’s more difficult,” Mr. Stern said. He pointed out the Liberal Party’s cross-endorsement of Manhattan Republican City Council Candidates Joel Zinberg and Patrick Murphy as examples of the party’s attempt to reform at the grassroots, joking that because of current redistricting regulations “a council member is more likely to be assassinated than be defeated at the polls.” When asked what values the reborn Liberal Party will stand for, Mr. Stern said “Honesty, integrity, control of expenditures – the best of Bloomberg.” But, he cautioned, “you need more than an ideology, you need boots on the ground – and if you’re not offering jobs or salvation, it’s heavy slogging.”
As the forces of faction dominate national politics, in Mayor Bloomberg’s post-ideological New York party labels are declining in significance. Despite the Democrats’ 5-to-1 registration advantage, New Yorkers appear to be on the verge of voting for a Republican in their fourth consecutive mayoral election. Whether Mayor Bloomberg pursues another round of election reforms or de-aligns from the Republican Party altogether in a second term will determine whether this shift sticks, or whether the familiar influence of the factions will cycle back.