Symbolic Implications

In the United States, maybe more so than in any other country in the world, symbolism matters immensely. This country is unique in that it was built predominately on unifying principles rather than common heritage or racial identification. We are tied together through the constitution, a single paper document, rather than a singular lineage. And so, the symbolic value of our actions comes to inherit as much meaning as the end result of those actions.

It is with this in mind that I find myself altogether confused at what transpired yesterday in New York. I suppose that what I feel is disappointment more than anything else.

The New York city council, by a vote of 29 to 22, passed a measure that will wave the two term limit for elected city positions and will pave the way for Michael Bloomberg to seek a third term. The issue was passionately debated by both sides, and resulted in a much more divided result than is typical for votes within the council.

According to mayor Bloomberg, the decision to push for a third term was a direct response to the current financial crisis, which he said raised the need for “consistent leadership”. In other words, this really wasn’t about him at all; he is doing this for everyone’s own well. But was the council’s vote really that altruistic in nature?

A closer look at the numbers behind the measure’s approval is quite telling. Of the 35 council members whose tenures were to be brought to an end this next year due to the 2-term limit, 23 voted for the approval of the measure (that is roughly 80 percent of the total yes votes). By contrast, only 6 of the 16 members in their first term voted for the measure. A pessimist (or perhaps a realist) might look at these numbers and find it interesting that one’s likelihood of voting to extend the term limits increases directly with how much they stand to gain from doing so in the short term.

Look, my objection here is not necessarily to the extension itself (although I believe that such limits must exist to some degree), but rather to the exclusion of public input in the process. Especially, in this case, given the city of New York’s traditional apprehension towards such an extension. Similar measures were proposed publicly in both 1993 and 1996, but they were each defeated. Sure, Mr. Bloomberg’s current approval ratings are nothing less than astounding (hovering at just around 70 percent), and so maybe public sentiment on the issue has swayed. Maybe the city actually wants such an extension. But who am I to make that determination? Who is the city council to make the determination with minimal public input?

In the end I suppose that voters will still have the opportunity to pass judgment when they cast their ballots next year. But, it’s the idea that democracy can be altered outside of the democratic process that in and of itself offends my sensibilities and that seems altogether counterintuitive. It’s the precedent that is set that is so overtly distasteful. In reference to the opening, it is the symbolism of this gesture that I disdain.

When this country was founded on principles, those principles only inherited meaning through their practice. George Washington could have quite easily sought repeated reelection, and he would have in all likelihood been successful time and time again. But what differentiated the American experiment from any other country was that he did not do it. Instead, he relinquished personal power for the purpose of empowering democracy itself.

Simply put, it was that symbolic gesture, and others quite like it that defined what it means to be a democracy.

So congratulations on your success yesterday mayor Bloomberg. I hear that you have done a great job so far, and I suppose that you are likely the frontrunner for the position. You’re probably even the best candidate. I get all of that, I really do. Just forgive me if I don’t believe that your end justifies your means.