If Only Rich Men Like Bloomberg Can Save Us, It’s Not a Democracy

This election cycle has shown us that while money is a significant part of the political process, it’s not enough for an American public that is increasingly cynical of so-called political insiders and monied “establishment” types.

For a historian and scholar, the possibility of Michael Bloomberg mounting a third-party presidential bid would be an exciting development. While third-party candidates have often mounted challenges in the past, rarely have they done so from the political center. It’s highly unusual to have an independent candidate whose experiences, policies and even politics identify him as a true ideologically “middle ground” contender.

But while the concept of political centrism may be appealing to some – perhaps even many – the notion that an intervention by a wealthy challenger is the only thing that will save our political system and our country, is troubling. It sends a clear message that only those with extraordinary wealth and power can solve the so-called dysfunction of the two-party system. If only the wealthy can save our country, is that truly a democracy?

The dance between money and politics has always been a delicate one, and 2010’s Citizens United decision further destabilized an already fractious institution. The effect has been staggering, in ways that we’re still trying to understand. Ultimately, the explicit transformation of the role of money in the political process has contributed, in part, to the growing cynicism and distrust of the American electorate toward politics. The populist uprisings surrounding Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump speak directly to that. Those candidates’ supporters – while at opposite ends of the ideological spectrum – reject the idea of establishment elites using their wealth to undermine the democratic process. Yes, there’s irony in Donald Trump – a self-proclaimed billionaire – running as an outsider and a populist, but he’s done so by appealing to poor white and working-class economic and racial anxieties and casting himself as an everyday man who has more in common with blue-collar America than with Wall Street. What’s remarkable about the Sanders and Trump phenomenon is that both men used the two-party system to do this; their popularity is a reflection of ordinary people on the ground.

The problem with Bloomberg’s approach is not that he’s a good or terrible candidate, but instead, that he’s relying on the concept of immense power and wealth to bypass the democratic process – as flawed as it may be. That’s a slippery slope. What does it say about our democracy that one of the wealthiest men in the world can buy a ticket to the presidential finish line, avoiding “We the People”?

Join Opinion on Facebook and follow updates on twitter.com/roomfordebate.