No Third Term for Bloomberg

When Franklin Roosevelt sought reelection in 1940, he became the first president to seek a third term in office. Opponents brandished campaign buttons that said "No Third Term." Thank God, of course, that Franklin Roosevelt won. His pursuit of Lend-Lease and other efforts to aid the British kept England afloat before America joined the war in 1941. History had judged F.D.R. right for bucking tradition.

Now Michael Bloomberg, who had once said that no one is indispensable and who had declared that he would only serve two terms, is readying for a third one. Never mind that the City of New York has term limits for its mayor, which voters overwhelmingly ratified. Bloomberg today said he's seeking a statutory solution that would allow him to seek more time in office, while leaving the rules in place for future mayoral candidates.

I'm loath to tell New Yorkers how to conduct their affairs. I haven't lived in New York since the '80s when I went to Columbia. If New Yorkers want term limits, great. If they don't, that's fine too. I personally think term limits aren't a good thing at any level of government. So if Bloomberg can find a loophole and can get the voters of New York to back him, does that mean he should run again?

I don't think so.

He's been, by all accounts, a good mayor--preserving the best of Giulianiesque reforms without the madness and irritability that defined the Rudy era. He had foresight on issues like climate change and trans fats and smoking, which made him seem like an oddball, but history will judge as prescient. But wouldn't it be better for Bloomberg to leave when his current term ends in a year--with a record of success?

The argument that Bloomberg is using is that his business acumen and experience are uniquely suited to the rough times ahead as New York City government is sure to hemorrhage red ink. But that seems like a specious argument. He's not going to be called on to deal with derivatives, C.D.O.'s, and Alt.A mortgages. He's going to have to do what mayors do all the time--cut budgets and piss off voters and unions. The city faces fiscal hardship, but Bloomberg is not the only person who can lay off city workers. He's not the only person who can cut budgets. He's not indispensable.

The recent history of mayors seeking third terms is not a pretty one. Ed Koch had a rotten third term and shouldn't have run again in 1985. Fiorello LaGuardia's term was considered his least successful. Robert Wagner had a weak one too. Maybe Bloomberg will have a great third term, but he certainly seems to be tempting fate.

Besides, shouldn't his considerable talents be put elsewhere? Bloomberg would be a strong Treasury Secretary for either John McCain or Barack Obama. He could devote himself to saving the American newspaper by making a run at the New York Times and saving it from the Sulzbergers and the hedge funds. He could start a new era in philanthropy and be every bit in the league of Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Gates. He could head the effort to reform the American financial system that will surely need an overhaul.

There's a lot he could do besides cut sanitation jobs. No wonder his top aides all reportedly urged him not to run. With all due respect to the mayor's record, add me to the list.

Matt Cooper

Get a daily fix of how politicians, business leaders, and others in the news are faring with the Portfolio.com Capital Index.