Two Mayors

The results of the New York mayoral election came out last week, with reformist candidate Bill de Blasio defeating his Republican opponent, Joseph Lhota, by a landslide. He will take over from the current mayor of 12 years, Michael Bloomberg. De Blasio’s background, style and political ideals all differ greatly from those of Bloomberg, showing New Yorkers’ desire for change. This is also seen as being in line with the trend of populist politicians rising to power around the world.

Bloomberg is among the world’s richest men, built his business from scratch and is very powerful. His sociopolitical ideals are closer to those of liberalism. He took over New York in the midst of 9/11; his first mission was to restore the citizens’ confidence and the hard-hit economy.

Bloomberg introduced the governance methods used in Bloomberg L.P. in New York, using data as the basis for improving governance. If the figures showed that a certain area had bad public security, he reinforced the security there. Data also became his biggest asset for showing off his political achievements: New York, once plagued by crime, became one of the safest cities in the world. The number of tourists increased by 40 percent and the population increased by 2 million.

During his term in office, corruption scandals were unheard of; besides that, he also used his wealth to push for gun control and reform of the immigration system, among other issues around the nation.

However, his prohibition of public smoking, advocacy for using bicycles to replace cars, limitations on unhealthy foods and other policies caused many to feel that he was too authoritarian, although they did bring benefits. His stop-and-frisk policy may have improved public security, but it was viewed as discrimination against minority races due to the way in which it was executed.

Canadian politician Freeland wrote that politicians like Bloomberg, who had no lack of funds, were not affected by vested interests, focused more on public causes and attracted large numbers of technologists concerned with public welfare to work for them.

However, as the gap between the rich and the poor widened every day in the U.S., especially in New York City, poor people were unable to obtain enough social welfare. Increasing numbers of people became hostile to the “rich man” politics that Bloomberg represented. The lives of these rich politicians were out of sync with those of the general populace; people began to question whether or not they really knew what the people needed.

In comparison, de Blasio has a formerly homosexual, black wife and a father who committed suicide. This complicated background resonated with many New Yorkers. He is charming and insists on improving the current inequality between the rich and the poor in New York, declaring that he would increase the taxes on the rich and reform Bloomberg’s stop-and-frisk policy.

However, even de Blasio’s supporters have to admit that he lacks the experience of being in power. The Economist pointed out that the wealthy Bloomberg financed his own election funds, whereas de Blasio had the support of large numbers of interest groups. These interest groups all hope to obtain better treatment through de Blasio. However, his starting point is good, and he might be able to build a bridge between New York’s rich and poor communities, challenging current institutional limits. The political pendulum will continue swinging nonstop between the two ends.