New York City Mayor's Mike Bloomberg won reelection today by the largest margin of any politician, including the popular Rudy Guliani. The secret of his success though certainly isn't popularity or charisma but inoffensiveness. Where previous New York mayors like Ed Koch or Guliani might have positioned themselves as aggressive activists and strong leaders, Bloomberg is secure in a persona as a grey middle manager. Unlike the larger than life figures of CEOS's we encounter all too often in biographies and in court records, Bloomberg is devoid of any personality livelier than a supervisor at the DMV. He lacks any human touch or empathy but this positions him as a manager rather than a mayor of r New York. Like a manager he is devoid of humanity but also inoffensive. He is not relatable but people presume that he does a good job because his entire aura is professional and inhuman and it is that very inhumanity that gives credibility to his competence.
Where other Mayors have staked out positions, Bloomberg with true buisness acumen has staed out deals that brought leading figures from all sides to his side of the table. He is as capable of making deals with a cult as he is with a union as he is with buisnessmen, unlike ideological politicians Bloomberg understands that everyone has interests and is ready to cut a deal with anyone. It's the secret of his success in gaining allies across racial and politicial lines. Many talks about everything in the city being for sale, but Bloomberg is the only one who really understands and acts on this concept.
The era of Bloomberg is an era of exhaustion. New Yorkers are tired of egotistical figures, of eccentric and strong willed politicians and Bloomberg functions as the replacement for those figures.In an era where people are more likely to vote against politicians than for them, Bloomberg has the least personality, the least positions and the fewest beliefs making him very difficult to strike against. The depersonalized and inhuman politician is the antitode and consenquence of negative politics and diminished idealism and optism. We vote for him because he's the least offensive, the least problematic and the least likely to let us down and so we get leaders who are the least. From Bloomberg to Pataki to Bush we are led by the mediocre, by men who would in the normal course of events have staked themselves out a corner office somewhere and led lives of tedious mediocrity in the buisness world. At a time when great leadership is called for, our own apathy and willingness to compromise our ideals insures the triumph of men without vision, inteligence or ideas.