There’s no Mayor Bloomberg conspiracy
At certain other rightwing blogs and in comments, there have been suggestions that there’s a conspiracy that allows Mayor Bloomberg and New York City to get away with certain conservative stuff like the stop-and-frisk policy because it’s New York City.
There’s no conspiracy. The mainstream liberal media publishes plenty of op-ed commentary from the usual left-wing Al Sharpton types lambasting Bloomberg and the stop-and-frisk policy.
Bloomberg gets away with it because (1) he simply ignores it because he knows that’s the best policy when dealing with those types, something that more conservative Republicans often don’t get; and (2) he has genuine bobo cred because he’s pro-abortion pro-gay pro-composting pro-marathon pro-bicycle anti-gun anti-unhealthy food so he has a lot more leeway to tell it like it is.
No conspiracy.
Lion of the Blogosphere 
There’s more to it than that. Simply ignoring left-wing outrage on stop-and-frisk would never work in any other city in the US. New York is special and holy and the usual rules don’t apply to it. That’s not a conspiracy, that’s a consequence of the fact that the most influential people in the country live there.
Contaminated NEET
June 30, 2013 at 5:29 PM
The same influential people lived in New York City when Dinkins was mayor.
And Dinkins also adds to the explanation, because the bobo class was fed up with the way Dinkins let the criminal class run wild. They were ready for someone like Giuliani to clean up the city. And Bloomberg followed.
There’s no conspiracy. Any other mayor could probably get away with more if he got elected under similar circumstances and pushed the envelope.
Lion of the Blogosphere
June 30, 2013 at 5:52 PM
Mister Lion, I was just reading the other day how Detroit began it’s downward spiral when Mayor Coleman Young ended stop and frisk policies there. That made the city unsafe and led to middle class flight. There weren’t enough bobos in Detroit to get someone like Giuliani or Bloomberg elected. That’s probably true for most cities. New York isn’t sui generis but there’s probably not many cities like it. My own hometown of Indianapolis avoided the fate of Detroit by extending the boundaries of the city out as people abandoned the inner city. We’ve reached the limits of doing that. The middle class is mostly outside the city now and crime is increasing and the city government is becoming increasingly inept at keeping it under control.
Mark
June 30, 2013 at 6:16 PM
New York’s turnaround was not foreordained. They’re still lucky Giuliani ran. If any lesser RINO candidate had run and won for the Republicans, NYC’s stagnation would have continued or worsened because whoever won wouldn’t have ruled with Giuliani’s iron fist. Then NY got lucky with Bloomberg who didn’t deviate from the Giuliani admin’s crime policies.
But their luck is going to run out with Anthony Weiner. He’s weaker than Bloomberg and Rahm Emmanuel, who himself will probably be primaried by a black Chicago Afro-nationalist. Weiner will prove inept and let the diversikrat city legislators push him around and undo the past 20 years worth of law enforcement.
The Undiscovered Jew
June 30, 2013 at 8:41 PM
Bloomberg is only riding the coattails of Giuliani’s legacy.
Guiliani paved the way in combating crime in NYC with his ruthless and iron fist tactics, mostly dealing with non-Asian minorities and also proles (Mafiosos). The Big Apple wouldn’t be this desirable and vibrant city today, without the hard ball policies of Rudy. I don’t consider Giuiliani to be a bobo mayor (he was a high prole). Unlike Bloomberg who comes off as sympathetic towards Blacks and Hispanics, because he’s still a bobo/liberal at heart, Giuliani was not afraid in offending them. Bloomberg would probably not have been the visionary, had he been in Guiliani shoes.
Dinkins was a racist mayor, who only favored blacks, giving them an air of arrogance to offend other groups without good cause leading to a very divisive/racially charged NYC at the time. It seems like Obama is also taking us into that direction, although it seems unwittingly.
JS
July 1, 2013 at 12:45 AM
Dinkins also proved again, that Blacks are never effective when it comes leadership positions.
JS
July 1, 2013 at 12:48 AM
“But their luck is going to run out with Anthony Weiner”.
Any democrap in city hall will destroyed what was built during the Giuliani and Bloomberg administrations.
JS
July 1, 2013 at 12:51 AM
Yes, I agree with you, there’s no conspiracy, and any other mayor could probably get away with the same thing, but only in NYC. My point is that our betters would never, never turn a blind eye to those kind of abuses in any place where they don’t personally live. If, say, Omaha, tried implementing stop-and-frisk, it would be a huge story and a national crisis until the practice was inevitably ended. NYC does it, and there’s some mild local-level complaining, but it never becomes a big issue in the national media.
Contaminated NEET
July 1, 2013 at 4:09 AM
Any democrap in city hall will destroyed what was built during the Giuliani and Bloomberg administrations.
As islandmommy pointed out, Bloomberg only won because of 911. Without the attacks Mark Greene would have been mayor. So even Bloomberg’s administration was a lucky break for NY.
The Undiscovered Jew
July 1, 2013 at 8:58 PM
“So even Bloomberg’s administration was a lucky break for NY”.
Yes, Bloomberg is a “moderate” liberal. Although he was able to continue the Giuliani days of a low crime NYC, he has completely balkanize the White middle class from the upper classes, and favors a 2 class rich-poor system in Manhattan, and eventually the outer boroughs if given more time to his term.
His total disconnect from the outer boroughs and his disdain for White proles, despite his Republican affiliation will set back NYC for at least another decade or so. If Giuliani was still the mayor, he would ensure White proles upgrade themselves and their neighborhoods become more vibrant. He would ignore the non-Asian minoritiesm, because they are serve no use to society and give accolades to those who really show promise, instead of Bloomberg, who shows unconditional love towards them, regardless what they do.
JS
July 2, 2013 at 12:03 AM
How does Bloomberg rank as a reactionary do you reckon? A lot of this stuff seems like it would appeal to the dextro-Maoist crowd, an orbit I count myself in, but something about him rubs me the wrong way.
Rocky Lazarus
June 30, 2013 at 8:29 PM
‘dextro-Maoist crowd’
What
Kaz
July 1, 2013 at 2:46 AM
On his website he seems to be saying that present day China and Singapore have got it kind of right and should be emulated. I disagree with the term because present day China is not Maoist. They have turned away from that but maintain authoritarianism.
Dan
July 1, 2013 at 10:28 AM
I forget who coined this term (I think it was Nydwracu), but Dan nailed it: It’s people with an admiration for present-day China and Singapore. I also agree with Dan that it’s not a perfect term (nor are China and Singapore perfect societies, nor can their example simply be ported to the west, etc.), but it’s a pretty cute turn of phrase IMHO.
In any event, I’d like to discuss the substance of my question: What are reactionaries to make of Bloomberg? He’s effectively neutered the progressives by catering to their pet causes, while also tackling issues that they, in their heart of hearts, want addressed (crime and other quality of life issues).
For what it’s worth, I have no problem with telling fat Americans that they can’t slurp down 3,000 calories of sugar in a single sitting. Chicago, a city dealing with a similar internal conflict, recently decided to allow conceal carry with background checks, registration and 16 hours of training; Sounds like a great way to ensure that only responsible, tax-paying, English-speaking people get guns. Couple it with massive penalties for illegal gun ownership and you’re on your way to putting a large segment of the problem away.
As you’ve probably gathered, I do not come out of libertarianism and thus do not share it’s assumptions with regard to the “free market” and “personal liberties” and what not. I’m in favor of structured societies. Modern versions of Plato’s Republic, if you will.
But getting back to the point… why are reactionaries not supportive of this guy? Because he wants people to compost?
Rocky Lazarus
July 1, 2013 at 11:14 AM
I’m not against Bloomberg by any means and I support things like stop and frisk and his big drink ban. But I will only support someone who is against free trade and against immigration and he’s for both of those things in a big way.
reynald
July 1, 2013 at 3:14 PM
“Bloomberg gets away with it because…he has genuine bobo cred because he’s pro-abortion pro-gay pro-composting pro-marathon pro-bicycle anti-gun anti-unhealthy food so he has a lot more leeway to tell it like it is.”
It’s like Paula Deen (the N-word) vs Alec Baldwin (gay-bashing and sexism)
aki (@DSGNTD_PLYR)
June 30, 2013 at 10:48 PM
Bloomberg gets away with it because
I completely agree. If you appeal to enough special interests you can ignore the rest. You just have to keep enough of the others happy. In this case, Bloomberg is on board with all the other BS so he can ddo what he wants on stop and frisk. It wouldn’t work for the GOP though. Even if they flipped on all the issues, radicals would scramble to create new ones that were even more extreme.
destructure
July 1, 2013 at 6:18 AM
Do you really think that a mayor who just happened to be a mormon would be able to get away for the same policies as Bloomberg’s? I don’t think so…
budusan
July 1, 2013 at 3:15 AM
Yes he could, as long as he was pro-abortion pro-gay anti-gun.
Lion of the Blogosphere
July 1, 2013 at 7:09 AM
I agree w/ LotB. Give the BoBos their shiny flashy things, and you can do what you want otherwise (espeically if after a glass of merlot or two the BoBos would agree with your policy. That also helps.). The GOP nationally has been doing that to red state rubes for decades now, plays them like fiddles.
klejdys
July 1, 2013 at 8:07 AM
Why is Manhattan safer than downtown Atlanta?
It’s because of stop-and-frisk (obviously) but because of the ethnic composition of New York’s liberal leadership (Jews) versus that of Atlanta’s liberal leadership (blacks) who refuse to lift a finger to even pass the most minor law against aggressive pandhandling – for fear of being “racist”.
Atlanta’s downtown should be a strong tourist destination, but it isn’t. It’s an absolute joke. There’s an NYC-style inground mall in Downtown Atlanta (called the underground) that should be the crown jewel of the central tourist district but it’s actually full of “urbanwear” establishments, barber ships and cheap jewelry stores. The city refuses to clean up the loitering and panhandling there and all of the decent shops and upscale shoppers left long ago.
In Downtown Atlanta you have swarms of shiftless blacks literally standing around or sitting on stoops all day with nothing to do, not patronizing any establishments. This would never fly in Manhattan.
Here’s a taste of what you see in Downtown Atlanta, it’s like a totally different world that whites never see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7QtknXDDQI
Camlost
July 1, 2013 at 9:44 AM
Sounds like downtown Brooklyn (where there are lot of stores and restaurants, but zero stores that appeal to bobo types, plus there are scary project-dwellers staring at you with cold hatred in their eyes).
Lion of the Blogosphere
July 1, 2013 at 9:53 AM
Yes, a few months ago, some commentator here said it was cool to own a loft in downtown Brooklyn that was nearby the gov’t offices which are mostly staffed by Black workers, who probably reside in the projects. The misconception of project dwellers being only welfare recipients is not true. There are many middle class Blacks who are also tenants. They just don’t like White people
JS
July 1, 2013 at 10:38 AM
Yeah, my father is from Ridgewood and I’ve been all over Brooklyn and I remember Flatbush and Bedford Stuyvesant being very similar areas.
Camlost
July 1, 2013 at 11:52 AM
Blacks never make good leaders. Any place govern by them is dysfunctional. Camden, NJ is another good example, and Sub Sahara Africa says it all. Another Liberal lie that all men are created equal.
Remember Mayor Dinkins, the 1st Black mayor of NYC? He was great, wasn’t he?
JS
July 1, 2013 at 10:43 AM
Obama has leadership. Of course, he is half white, and was raised entirely by whites and Indonesians.
Lion of the Blogosphere
July 1, 2013 at 10:46 AM
What actually changed NYC was the Crown Heights Riot. Jews wanted revenge and Giuliani was their Pontius Pilate. All the “civil rights” whining in the world couldn’t save the black community after that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Heights_riot
precisekumshot
July 1, 2013 at 1:22 PM
Giuliani’s vision was to make NYC a town primarily for the middle and the upper middle classes, ultimately driving the lower classes out of Manhattan and ultimately NYC, which means Blacks and Hispanics would find other cities to live.
When Bloomberg came into office, despite being a Republican in name only, made Manhattan for the upper and lower classes only, driving out much of the middle class into the outer boroughs and perhaps NYC altogether. Bloomberg also built additional public housing projects for the lower classes. He’s a liberal at heart and his policies are destructive.
JS
July 1, 2013 at 11:21 PM
You’re being unfair to Sailer here. He never said it’s a “conspiracy,” he simply said rich people get what they feel they need, i.e. physical safety, politics be damned. The point is that they should allow non-rich people to get it too, but they won’t.
helene edwards
July 1, 2013 at 1:53 PM
Immigration, feminism, and civil rights all hurt the poor while the rich insulate themselves in various ways. Stop and frisk is probably the most egregious way that the rich avoid the negative effects of the civil rights movement. They mostly just spend massive amounts of money so that they and their children can avoid black people.
reynald
July 1, 2013 at 3:19 PM
“Stop and frisk” is not a “conservative” policy. It is radically liberated policy (the “frisk” being de facto homo intimidation) used by one variant of radical autonomist (“white” liberal) to cope with another variant of EVEN MORE radical autonomist (“black” liberal).
Let these fools slug it out to the death.
thordaddy
July 1, 2013 at 4:15 PM
how is having the police stop and search huge numbers of people purely because they look suspicious an expression of any kind of autonomy, radical or otherwise?
reynald
July 1, 2013 at 8:03 PM
Reynald,
If “you” have the power to “stop and frisk” then “you” have something akin to radical autonomy.
thordaddy
July 1, 2013 at 9:11 PM
“he has genuine bobo cred because he’s pro-abortion pro-gay pro-composting pro-marathon pro-bicycle anti-gun anti-unhealthy food so he has a lot more leeway to tell it like it is.”
The question for the GOP base is, what do you care more about: (1) slowing the ongoing democide of europeans or (2) banning abortion/gay marriage/bike lanes.
Since NAMs are 25% of the vote, the swing voters these days are whites/asians who are politically on the left third of the spectrum. Not just moderates, actual liberals on most issues. People who voted for, or would have voted for, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis. People who are strongly for gay marriage.
Bloomberg and Guiliani managed to get 75%+ plus of the white vote in an extremely liberal and secular city, so it can be done. Rahm and Daley did the same in Chicago.
Zoink
July 1, 2013 at 11:55 PM