US President Donald Trump is a billionaire, or claims to be. The last thing he is expecting from the 2020 presidential election is an opponent who is even richer.
However, one of the more unusual clusters in the putative Democratic field is the billionaire boys club: former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, hedge fund investor and activist Tom Steyer and former Starbucks chief executive Howard Schultz. Estimated combined wealth: US$50 billion.
If any or all decide to run, they will have a massive spending advantage over conventional politicians and be at liberty to carpet-bomb crucial primary states with advertising. However, their deep pockets are also likely to produce a visceral reaction from left-wing activists favoring warriors against economic inequality, such as US senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
“I don’t think Michael Bloomberg is going to win Democracy for America’s endorsement anytime soon given his connections to Wall Street,” said Neil Sroka, spokesman for the progressive group. “It’s going to be hard for any of the billionaires given concerns over the influence the wealthy have over our politics.”
A recent straw poll by another liberal advocacy group, MoveOn, was led by US Representative Beto O’Rourke at 15.6 percent, alongside Sanders and Warren in the top five. Bloomberg ranked eighth at 2.71 percent, while Steyer was in 23rd place at 0.28 percent and Schultz tied for 32nd and last place at 0.1 percent.
However, these are early days and corporate titans can buy name recognition. Schultz, 65, reportedly plans to travel the country early next year to promote a book entitled From the Ground Up: A Journey to Reimagine the Promise of America. Bloomberg recently re-registered as a Democrat and Steyer spent heavily in the midterms to help Democrats regain the House of Representatives.
Earlier this month they were on the ground in the key states of Iowa and South Carolina. Both have political causes that could make them stand apart from a highly crowded field.
Bloomberg, 76, vowed to make climate change the defining issue of the Democratic primary campaign, despite potential resistance in states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan, where Trump won in 2016 by promising to resurrect the coal industry.
Whereas climate change was not even mentioned in the debates between then-presidential candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton and Trump in 2016, there is a growing clamor for it to be treated as a global emergency.
Steyer, 61, held a roundtable discussion in Charleston, South Carolina, focused on voting rights in the first southern primary state. Like Bloomberg, he has spent millions of US dollars promoting awareness of climate change.
However, he is best known for his dogged effort to bring about Trump’s impeachment in defiance of Democratic leaders who regard the strategy as too risky. Nearly 6.5 million people have signed up to his Need to Impeach Web site, handing him an e-mail list that could prove invaluable in an election campaign.
Steyer described Trump as “the most corrupt president in American history who is a basic threat to our system and our safety, and to the constitution itself,” The Associated Press reported.
He said many Democrats and Republicans “don’t think it’s good for their careers to talk about that.”
The events of recent days, in which prosecutors connected Trump to the federal crime of paying hush money to two women during an election campaign, and US Special Counsel Robert Mueller nailed fresh details of his team’s contacts with Russia, have fueled demands for impeachment and suggested that Steyer could find himself on the right side of history.
“The 2020 Democratic field is not unlike a game of Monopoly; it’s a question of what property do you own,” said Bill Whalen, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution thinktank in Palo Alto, California.
“You have to look at this through the lens of Democratic primary voters: Steyer has beat the others to punch on impeachment,” he said.
“Schultz has been quietly reaching out to policy types. If it’s Goldilocks and the Three Bears, he is the coolest porridge, Steyer is the hottest and Bloomberg is the middle,” Whalen added.
But while the three are more than a match for Trump at business, they cannot claim to be reality TV stars.
“You have to ask yourself, while these guys are fabulously wealthy, are they interesting?” Whalen said. “None of them has the intrigue or scandal or celebrity that Trump has. Put Steyer and Schultz and Bloomberg in front of an audience in Iowa and tell me which one connects.”
“It has to be Steyer because of his message to hang them high. It’s not Bloomberg talking about what he did for infrastructure in New York. There’s a lot in Bloomberg’s record in New York that won’t please Democratic activists,” he said.
One example is Bloomberg’s policy of having police stop people on the street to search them for guns, an approach that largely affected men of color.
In 2013, a federal district judge ruled that stop-and-frisk had been carried out in an unconstitutional manner, but Bloomberg continues to insist that stop-and-frisk did not infringe civil rights.
He is socially liberal, but fiscally conservative, a free trader with views on banking regulation that are anathema to the left. Last week, he told ABC’s The View that he thinks most Democrats want a “middle-of-the-road” strategy with a pragmatist in the White House.
His support for immigration and gun control are not likely to be enough to win over the progressive wing.
“The momentum in the party is circling back towards Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Tulsi Gabbard, even folks who want to brand themselves as progressives like Kirsten Gillibrand and Kamala Harris. It would be hard for a guy like Michael ‘stop-and-frisk’ Bloomberg or Tom Steyer to come out and say: ‘I’m a progressive,’” said Dave Handy, a New York-based political consultant and organizer.
“If Bloomberg tries to present himself as on the left on healthcare with the soda ban [a failed attempt to limit sales of jumbo sugary drinks], that’s precisely the wrong type: It’s what conservatives like to call the nanny state,” Handy added.
Wealth is not necessarily disqualifying: Former Democratic presidents such as Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy hailed from US aristocracy. However, amid deep skepticism about the corrosive effects of money in politics, and as more and more candidates say they will reject corporate donations from political action committees, the timing is unfortunate.
None of the billionaires has yet thrown his hat in the ring, but Bloomberg is actively considering it, while it emerged on Wednesday last week that Steyer is using an anonymous LinkedIn page to advertise vacant “state director” jobs in Nevada, South Carolina and New Hampshire.
Schultz is keeping a lower profile: He joined Twitter in September 2012, but is yet to tweet.
“They could be formidable, but they’d better not wait around,” said Bob Shrum, a Democratic strategist who was an adviser to the Al Gore and John Kerry presidential campaigns. “They have to start on the ground in Iowa and New Hampshire, and not assume buying ads will be enough.”
“Their money is a huge advantage, although Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Beto O’Rourke can raise huge amounts. Bloomberg can have a fundraising breakfast with himself,” he added.
The 75th anniversary summit of NATO was held in Washington from Tuesday to Thursday last week. Its main focus was the reinvigoration and revitalization of NATO, along with its expansion. The shadow of domestic electoral politics could not be avoided. The focus was on whether US President Biden would deliver his speech at the NATO summit cogently. Biden’s fitness to run in the next US presidential election in November was under assessment. NATO is acquiring more coherence and teeth. These were perhaps more evident than Biden’s future. The link to the Biden candidacy is critical for NATO. If Biden loses
Shortly after Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) stepped down as general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in 2012, his successor, Xi Jinping (習近平), articulated the “Chinese Dream,” which aims to rejuvenate the nation and restore its historical glory. While defense analysts and media often focus on China’s potential conflict with Taiwan, achieving “rejuvenation” would require Beijing to engage in at least six different conflicts with at least eight countries. These include territories ranging from the South China Sea and East China Sea to Inner Asia, the Himalayas and lands lost to Russia. Conflicts would involve Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia,
The Sino-Indian border dispute remains one of the most complex and enduring border issues in the world. Unlike China’s borders with Russia and Vietnam, which have seen conflicts, but eventually led to settled agreements, the border with India, particularly the region of Arunachal Pradesh, remains a point of contention. This op-ed explores the historical and geopolitical nuances that contribute to this unresolved border dispute. The crux of the Sino-Indian border dispute lies in the differing interpretations of historical boundaries. The McMahon Line, established by the 1914 Simla Convention, was accepted by British India and Tibet, but never recognized by China, which
In a recent interview with the Malaysian Chinese-language newspaper Sin Chew Daily, former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) called President William Lai (賴清德) “naive.” As always with Ma, one must first deconstruct what he is saying to fully understand the parallel universe he insists on defending. Who is being “naive,” Lai or Ma? The quickest way is to confront Ma with a series of pointed questions that force him to take clear stands on the complex issues involved and prevent him from his usual ramblings. Regarding China and Taiwan, the media should first begin with questions like these: “Did the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)