The best way to gauge whether a mayor deserves re-election is to compare him to his predecessors. So how does Mayor Bloomberg stand up to the New York City mayors of the recent past?

The top tier of mayors from the past 100 years includes Fiorello La Guardia, Rudolph Giuliani, and arguably Edward Koch. All of these mayors took office during a time of profound civic crisis, whether it was from corruption, fiscal irresponsibility, or out-of-control crime.

Mayor Bloomberg has not yet earned the right to be named among these three. He took office three months after the greatest collective act of violence ever inflicted upon our city. But unlike the circumstances that greeted these three mayors, New York City was not having a crisis of faith – the spirit of our city was strong and unified.

Our economy, however, was damaged and our confidence was shaken. Mayor Bloomberg has done an excellent job of addressing these issues, keeping crime on the decline while encouraging economic development in all five boroughs. He fulfilled his promise to take control of the school system and while the results are not yet conclusive, it is disingenuous to argue that no progress has been made. At the very least, he has opened the door for the fundamental education reforms that were necessary, reforms that were resisted by establishment Democrats like Fernando Ferrer.

On these measures alone it is clear that Mayor Bloomberg deserves re-election. He has been a solid and responsible steward for our city.

The one-term New York mayors are those who failed their basic responsibility to safeguard the city in terms of crime, fiscal stability, and quality of life. Mayors like Abe Beame and David Dinkins, for example, may have been well intentioned and amiable men but they failed to steer our ship of state into calmer waters. Mayor Bloomberg clearly has managed to do this with an executive style that while not al ways decisive has never been divisive. Along with the unifying after-effects of September 11th, he deserves much credit for the improved local political climate. This is reflected his more than 40% of support from both the African-American and Hispanic communities – against a Hispanic candidate. While these numbers may not ultimately be sustainable, they do show that his conciliatory style has succeeded in breaking down the racial ramparts of New York City politics, which have hurt our local democracy for so long.

But for all these accomplishments, he has not yet achieved the first-tier status of an iconic mayor; in some respects, he has not even tried to compete in their league. La Guardia, Giuliani and Koch were all larger than life figures – wise-cracking, fearless, and combative. They understood that great New York City mayors need to be symbols of their Technicolor and tabloid city. Mr. Bloomberg’s drier wit and understated style reflect his Medford, Massachusetts roots. But no one can deny the man’s ambition. Unlike the troika at the top, he made himself a stunning private sector success before reaching public life. He remains essentially businesslike: defiantly secular; both culture and cubicle-loving; appreciative of luxury without being overly sentimental; concerned about society, but ultimately driven by the bottom-line.

So where does Mayor Bloomberg currently stack in historical comparison of New York City mayors? Already, in his first four years, I would argue that Mayor Bloomberg deserves to be ranked solidly in the second quartile of New York City mayors. He is on par with thoroughly admirable if not inspirational chief executives such as Robert F. Wagner who served during the golden years of the 1950s and early 1960s New York. Like Wagner, Mr. Bloomberg is a capable executive and a calming force, somebody who inspired a basic level of confidence, if not operatic passion among the populace.

But there is a cautionary tale within this compliment.The rapid decline of the Lindsay years began in the drift of the last Wagner term, when appointees inside City Hall gave away issues with long-term civic implications such as collective bargaining.

If Mr. Bloomberg wins re-election, there is still time for him to vault himself into the first tier of mayors. His inherent ambition could be the key. Mr. Bloomberg has a historic opportunity in his second term if he and his advisors should choose to take it: No mayor in our history will owe his election to fewer individuals. His self-funded status makes him an anomaly in our democracy, a principled figure who can operate in complete independence from special interests. His increased political capital after re-election begs for useful application. No other mayor will have the political freedom to tackle the truly tough underlying structural issues that always threaten to cripple our city. If he does, he will earn our city’s enduring thanks and respect.

This is the opportunity, but there is no guarantee. So far, Mr. Bloomberg has not been aggressive when it comes to electoral reform or shrinking the size and cost of government. He often speaks the right words, but internal resistance sometimes overwhelms his best instincts – notably on issues like bilingual education reform, which the mayor campaigned on four years ago and then backed away from under the influence of appointee Diana Lam.

A second term represents a second chance at greatness and access to the first tier of mayors. Mayor Bloomberg has the ambition and he has the right instincts. But if the permanent government crowd wins out, his second term will be a wan disappointment, a collective lost opportunity in favor of cocktail parties and cultural events. He can do better, and our city deserves better. Mayor Bloomberg should aim for the history books and set an ambitious agenda as if his legacy depends on it – because it does.

jpavlon@nysun.com