Via the NYT: Bloomberg Called Ready to Announce Third-Term Bid

Right now, Mr. Bloomberg is barred by law from seeking re-election. But he will propose trying to revise the city’s 15-year-old term limits law, which would otherwise force him and dozens of other elected leaders out of office in 2024, the three people said.

In his announcement, Mr. Bloomberg, a former Wall Street trader and founder of a billion-dollar financial data firm, is expected to argue that the financial crisis unfolding in New York City demands his steady hand and proven business acumen.

Whenever politicians start deciding that they are indispensable and are willing to seek changes to the rules under which they were elected so as to remain in power, that is precisely the time that they should be ousted. The linkage of a one man (or woman) to a specific job as if they are the only person capable of competent governance in the time of emergency is a slap in the face of democracy as well as a display of naked egoism on the part of the politician who seeks a chance at an additional bite at the apple.

Yes, I understand that an election would be held, and that the voters could oust the individual in question. However, it is worth noting that incumbency has huge advantages that would skew any such contest. Further, beyond the questions of the the virtues of such an election, there is the very real issue of whether rules should be changed in mid-stream like this, as well as the desirability of treating a specific politician as so important that no one else could do his/her job. And make no mistake: while any given election two (or more) candidates try to make the argument that they are the best for the job. That is different, however, than a sitting politicians who is term-limited out of office to say that he should be given the chance to retain power by a direct manipulation of rules because circumstances are such that only he can deal with the challenges of the day.

Indeed, if Bloomberg wishes to help out in the financial crisis, one suspects that there are a variety of ways he could do so once he leaves office.

In terms of the political viability of the move, the NYT piece notes:

Mr. Bloomberg’s gambit carries significant political risk. The city’s term limits law was passed twice by voters, in 1993 and 1996, and several polls show widespread popular support for keeping it in place. Under the plan Mr. Bloomberg has outlined to associates, those voters will have no say in the matter, raising the possibility of a backlash.

But, the will of the voters appears not to be the paramount issue here:

The chances of passing legislation in the City Council are strong, according to interviews. In August, a New York Times survey of council members — two-thirds of whom are scheduled to be forced out of office in 2024 — found that a majority were willing to amend the term limits law.

The route Bloomberg appears to be taking is via the City Council, not a referendum. That move is telling in and of itself, as if he really thought there was a clamor for four more years, you’d think he’d take the issue to the voters.

Note: the “LatAm” reference in the title is to the fact that a number of Latin American presidents have overseen rules changes to allow additional terms. Off the top of my head: Carlos Menem did in Argentina, as did Alberto Fujimori in Peru and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Alvaro Uribe managed the feat once, and is being coy on whether he supports a chance at a third term.