There is an air of disdain about the American electorate. A collective sense of settling for less pervades the political discourse as we unenthusiastically observe our motley field of candidates. It seems as if we are not choosing the best future president, but the most acceptable among a cohort of otherwise uninspiring and lackluster politicians. Selecting our commander in chief, a process that should be riveting, more closely resembles deciding whether or not to eat the questionable sloppy Joe leftovers from Tuesday.
Essentially, we are given a choice between a rock and a hard place. The Republican front runner is a xenophobic billionaire who, despite our most vehement wishes, shows no intention of dropping out. The Democrats will nominate either a self-proclaimed socialist and hopeless idealist, or a contested war criminal with a track record spottier than your standard leopard. The prospects of electing an inspiring president are undeniably grim.
However, perhaps we spoke too soon. Although they have not yet been confirmed, there are whisperings of an independent candidate entering the race, a candidate who could provide solace for the wearisome and beleaguered American voters — a candidate that adheres not to party lines, but to his own moral code. A Bloomberg candidacy could be exactly what America has been waiting for.
For those who are not well acquainted with former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, let's address the elephant in the room: He’s a billionaire, with a net worth approximately nine times that of Donald Trump. Bloomberg acquired his fortune via Bloomberg LP, a media and technology company he founded in 1981. Unlike Trump, Bloomberg has used his considerable wealth to promote the arts, education and environmental sustainability through his foundation, Bloomberg Philanthropies.
Once a Republican, then a Democrat and now an independent, Bloomberg is no party stooge, a fact his political track record makes abundantly clear. His is a unique mix of republican economics and democratic social policy, a refreshing combination that unites the historically disparate and irreconcilable party ideologies.
A look at his liberal side reveals that, in 2006, Bloomberg recognized abortion as a fundamental human right. He supported gay marriage as early as 2007 (six years before Hillary did), recognizes the important economic role of immigrants (even the illegal ones) and is notoriously passionate about reducing obesity in the United States.
The best of his fiscal conservatism came to light in 2007 when he turned New York City’s $5 billion deficit into a $4 billion surplus by eliminating unnecessary city agencies and increasing property taxes. Perhaps he could use a similar approach in reducing our $19 trillion national debt.
Unconstrained by party allegiances and with an affinity for the controversial and difficult (two words most politicians shy away from), Bloomberg offers the American people a candidate we don’t have to settle for. A Bloomberg presidency would be a welcome relief from the partisan politics of the past eight years and could bring together a country presently lacking in unity. While Sanders, Trump or Clinton would most certainly increase hostilities across the aisle, Bloomberg’s distinct brand of politics is one voters and legislatures alike can rally behind. A Bloomberg candidacy would turn leftover Tuesday, a buffet of unappealing and ambiguous politicians, into good ol' Chicken Finger Wednesday.