Quickies: A Misdiagnosis

     I’m something of a fan of Tucker Carlson, who strikes me as the most forthright political commentator on the television networks. However, he too is fallible – aren’t we all? – and sometimes misses the point of an important development. Watch and listen to his monologue of yesterday evening:

     Carlson is correct that Bloomberg represents a threat to the political system. However, in my opinion he misidentifies the specifics of the threat. Indeed, there’s evidence to that effect in what he says in the above: i.e., that Trump defeated Clinton despite spending only half of what the Clinton campaign spent on advertising. That cross-cuts Carlson’s contention that Bloomberg’s vast wealth could enable him to purchase the presidency.

     Moreover, Carlson errs in his assertion that Bloomberg has no sincere convictions. He does have one, and I can state it in a single short sentence:

“I know what’s best and you don’t.”

     With that Bloomberg will brook no argument. It’s a common conceit among the wealthy, especially the self-made wealthy. And from it flows every other stance he’s ever taken on anything.

     While I doubt that Bloomberg can win the presidency merely by flooding the airwaves with his ads, I will admit that his money can have a role in politics – perhaps even a critical one. I recently proposed an explanation for why Bloomberg is getting special treatment from the DNC, and it is because of his wealth. That piece, in my opinion, is a better explanation for why Bloomberg is in the race than any other now in circulation. It would certainly account for the DNC’s special accommodations for him.

     Money in politics is subject to the Law of Diminishing Returns. Its principal effect is to make voters aware of a candidate, his record, and his proposed agenda in office. Beyond that it loses effect. However, billions of dollars spread among many state and local elections could have a greater aggregate effect than if it were spent on a presidential candidacy. If Bloomberg’s money could be used to buy not the presidency but a great many “down-ticket” offices, particularly in the state legislatures, the DNC would rejoice. The state and local governments are the “triple A” teams of national politics, from which candidates emerge to contend for federal offices. A Democrat takeover of government at the state and local levels would put the Republican Party on a deathwatch. That prospect, plus the neutering of the extremely dangerous Bernie Sanders, would constitute a sufficient justification for the DNC’s embrace of Bloomberg.

     From Bloomberg’s perspective, his uber-issue of gun control – really, banning the civilian possession of firearms altogether – is paramount. A great takeover of the state legislatures is the most plausible route toward that end. Thus his “agenda” and the DNC’s desires, while not identical, appear to be harmonious.

     Thus there is danger, even though the Tiny Tyrant’s chance of attaining the Oval Office is slim to none.