The complicated legacy that is the billionaire mayoralty

In November, the city of New York will elect Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s replacement. During his tenure as mayor, Bloomberg proved to be a remarkably divisive figure among New Yorkers. Bloomberg’s successes were unimpeachable, but his shortcomings were hard to ignore. Ultimately, Bloomberg will leave behind a legacy that could shape the way New York and other large cities are governed for years to come.

Bloomberg took office at a sensitive time for New York. Less than three months removed from the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the city was facing a litany of problems. Lower Manhattan, a hub of commerce and business activity, was decimated.

Since then, a number of Bloomberg’s policies and projects have led to a revitalization of downtown New York. According to  The New York Times, in an address to the Downtown Alliance, Bloomberg referenced the population growth of the area, up from 23,000 in 2001 to 60,000 in 2013.

Perhaps the most noticeable impact of Bloomberg’s mayoralty is the city’s dramatic reduction in crime. Though crime rates started to dip under former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, violent crimes including homicide, rape and assault continued to fall under Bloomberg, according to “PBS NewsHour.”

As crime rates dropped, many criticized the mayor for the New York Police Department’s overreach. Specifically, according to “PBS NewsHour,” the “stop and frisk” program, which Bloomberg has said he supports, and the NYPD’s surveillance of Muslim organizations have left many New Yorkers with a negative impression of the mayor.

Most miraculous was Bloomberg’s salvage of the city’s finances even through the Great Recession. In 2003, Bloomberg introduced a $3 billion tax increase primarily aimed at property taxes. According to professor of Urban Policy and Planning Mitchel Moss, Bloomberg averted the economic crisis that befell cities like Los Angeles when the Great Recession hit in 2008 with the establishment of a stream of revenue tied to property tax. The revenue base of such cities was tied to income and sales tax, both of which decrease significantly during recessions.

Bloomberg’s legacy as mayor will be a complicated one, to say the least. For all of his successes, the city’s public education system is riddled with problems going all the way to the administrative level. Homelessness has been on the rise, and the aforementioned issues with the NYPD have made Bloomberg a target of civil rights groups, according to “PBS NewsHour.”

That is what makes it so difficult to call Bloomberg a good or bad mayor. Perhaps the best designation for Bloomberg would be effective. In spite of his failures, of which there are quite a few, Bloomberg firmly re-established New York as a center of commerce and culture at a time when New York was in danger of losing relevancy.

Bloomberg’s style of leadership would serve the multitude of failing United States cities well. Bloomberg’s mistakes are damning but can be avoided. Perhaps he could have done a better job with prioritizing.

Bloomberg’s proposed “soda ban,” for example, created more problems than it would have solved had it passed. Not that the proposal itself was necessarily bad, but vocal backlash from the liberty brigade should have been anticipated.

Bloomberg came so close to being that rare politician: ideologically consistent with a track record of unquestionable, quantifiable success. Though his failures were felt by many and should not be ignored, Bloomberg must be credited with pulling the city in from the brink. In the grand scheme of things, Bloomberg was the type of leader that the city of New York desperately needed.

On the semantics of “supporting the troops”

Around this time of year, the phrase “support the troops” is floated around as a way to honor the men and women who serve in the United States military. This saying’s aim and what it accomplishes are two completely different entities. It aims to, as stated above, show solidarity with our country’s armed forces. What it succeeds in doing, however, is shield the military from the scrutiny and criticism it deserves. That is not to say that the United States military is an entirely harmful organization. I would never make so broad of an assertion. But I recognize the failures and abuses, at home and overseas, of our nation’s armed forces. It is for these reasons that I cannot say I “support” “the troops.”

The phrase “support the troops” is strategically worded to avoid any discussion of policy and/or politics. “The troops,” after all, are not the ones making policy. The logic goes that, regardless of your political leanings, you can unite in supporting the selfless “heroes” who put their country above their own safety.

This scenario presents a few problems. Notably, it stigmatizes criticism of the military, a body that has found itself at odds with international law several times within the past decade for its invasion of Iraq and unchecked use of drones. It also assumes that “the troops” have no agency in any of this. The troops are not the ones executing these abuses; it’s the politicians.

Consider the case of Robert Bales, a former U.S. Army staff sergeant who recently pleaded guilty to killing 16 Afghani civilians, including nine children, as evidence to the contrary. I could also cite the culture of sexual assault in the military that results in alarmingly low prosecution rates (less than three percent), but that is a topic deserving of its own article.

I cannot in good conscience “support” either of those. Yet that ubiquitous phrase that is thrown around so liberally implicitly does just that. It may feel uncomfortable to think of the military in such callous terms, but it is a very basic truth that the U.S. military has some very serious flaws that need to be confronted.

The purpose of this article is not simply to castigate the military. It is vital to regularly examine our national institutions and offer corrections where they are due. The overuse of the phrase “support the troops” serves to hinder us from any objective criticism of the U.S. military and its practices. It has become a foregone conclusion that the military is a force for good with a sterling reputation, though the facts argue otherwise.  Correcting the way we talk about the military is one step on a long path to improving the institution.

I would never fault one for loving one’s country.  In fact, love of country seems to be the most visible commonality between conservatives and liberals; it simply manifests differently across the two groups. Anyone who loves his or her country, however, should hope to see that country’s institutions constantly improving and becoming more just. That is what I wish for the U.S. military.