Oped Objectivity?

Michael Bloomberg has just announced that he is adding an opinion section to his financial news organization: http://www.salon.com/news/michael_bloomberg/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/12/21/bloomberg_opinions. This opinion section will apparently offer only "ideology-free, empirically-based editorial positions about the pressing issues of our time." And what do "ideology-free" editorials look like? Bloomberg news editor in chief Matt Winkler argues they are "based on a sensibility that attempts at least to understand what are all the facts that we're dealing with when we bring our wisdom to an issue ... to look at things as they are and then to come up with a solution to make them better. It's a realistic approach." A realistic approach is what editorials try to do in general, isn't it? And as Bloomberg himself has made clear by touting his educational achievements based on flawed statistics and simply making state tests easier (the national NAEP scores in New York City are actual flat over his tyrannical stewardship of the NYBOE), facts and empirical evidence can be skewed to say just about anything we want them to say.

The deeper problem with the idea of "ideology-free" opinions is there adherence to a positivistic perspective that continues to dominate American research and epistemology today. By pretending at an objectivity that is impossible, it gives the imprimatur or reality without much to back up that claim. Beyond the ability of numbers to be manipulated is the ideology invoked in a "realistic" or "pragmatic" approach to policy and reform. Both signify an underlying cynicism of the possibility of radical change and an unspoken adherence to the status quo. At most, pragmatic policy advocates call for slow, incremental change -- even when the situation is dire. And though Bloomberg is certainly not the classic conservative -- as he is liberal on social issues, has occasionally raised taxes on the rich and sees a much more active role for the government in legislating healthy behavior -- he is, at bottom, a capitalist who is supportive of Wall Street, anti-union, pro-trade and bases his governing style on a mixture of tyrannical fiat (or bullying individuals or groups to his will -- as with the police, fireman, teachers union and city council on term limits) and scientifically-based efficiency, that tends to eliminate the human element from the equation. 

Many point to Bloomberg as a model example of how to run a big city effectively, but that certainly depends on who you talk to. Rents continue to rise even as the non-Wall Street workforce of New York City suffers. He undertook an ambitious redevelopment plan for the city, with many of those plans left undone as the financial crisis hit. He has, in my estimation, worsened the education system in NYC (with some minor improvements to his credit) and created a general political climate that undermines the rather vibrant democracy that has always defined New York. And some of his bad decisions appear to relate to an immutable hubris that he is above political games and essentially right about everything (because he is rich enough not to be encumbered by special interests or ulterior motives). On the surface, there seems to be some merit in the ability of a billionaire politician to stay above the political fray and enticements of public office, but what is missing in this narrative is the biases that tend to come with being a billionaire to begin with.

Bloomberg believes he can run the government like a business, a now commonly held belief among most conservatives, and many centrists and liberals. But the problem with this line of reasoning is that private and public organizations have different aims, different strengths and weaknesses and different stakeholders. Where efficiency might be the main goal of private enterprise, other concerns influence decision-making in the public sphere -- for example positive and negative externalities and concerns about the common good. People and numbers are not the same thing and we can see on a global scale what the cost of business models of governance look like -- increased poverty, increased inequality, lack of accountability, major asymmetries in power and decision-making and environmental and health crises that seem without solution. "Objective" and "ideology-free" opinions sound wonderful on the surface, particularly in these partisan times, yet what is lost? A deeper structural analysis of problems and new, creative solutions. Moving beyond the what is to the what can and what should be. Any nod to utopian notions of a better, more just world. And too often the human element that should be at the center of any public policy decision.