Last October, I wrote a piece called “A New Kind of Paternalism,” in which I criticized the blatant violations of individual liberty inherent in Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s proposed ban on large soft drinks. Now that a New York judge has struck down the ban, like-minded individuals can celebrate a symbolic, albeit a small, victory for individual liberty. But the significance of this legal decision should not be overestimated. While the soda ban may have been defeated, countless other paternalistic measures remain for the city of New York, thanks to the ongoing efforts of its mayor. Indeed, events since last October have confirmed Mayor Bloomberg’s place at the forefront of this new kind of paternalistic movement in American governance.
A case in point is his reaction to the judge’s decision regarding his soda ban: “I’ve gotta defend my children, and you, and everybody else and do what’s right to save lives.” One thing the mayor can claim along these lines is consistency; he’s been “protecting” New Yorkers from themselves quite well in his years as mayor. Besides his ban on large sodas, Bloomberg has also proposed bans on trans fats and salt, regulations on alcohol sales and advertising (including promotions for local bars), limitations on vehicle idling, and laws requiring restaurants to include calorie counts on their menus. His most recent proposal would not only ban stores from having tobacco products in view, requiring store managers to keep them behind curtains or wooden cabinets, but would also limit any store’s ability to offer discount deals or low prices on tobacco products. As he put it: “these laws would protect New Yorkers … from pricing, discounts, and exposure to in-store displays that promote tobacco products.” In the 2013 State of the City address, Bloomberg also proposed banning Styrofoam packaging (used in take-out containers and to-go cups). He even recently announced an initiative to do something about loud music in individuals’ headphones and ear buds. A recent meme depicted Bloomberg saying: “Keep the volume low on your ear buds. I want to make sure you can hear me when I tell you what to eat and drink.”
The implications of Bloomberg’s actions are clear: New Yorkers simply shouldn’t be trusted to make decisions on their own. Rather, it is up to Mayor Bloomberg to protect them from the temptation of tasty foods, low prices, and potentially enticing in-store displays by making such decisions on their behalf. In his mind, it is his responsibility to impose healthy lifestyles on his citizens, even if healthier choices are no longer choices at all. As he recently stated at the United Nations: “there are powers only governments can exercise … and governments at all levels must make healthy solutions the default social option. This is ultimately government’s highest duty.”
Significantly, Bloomberg himself (the thirteenth richest person in the entire world according to Forbes) is not subject to the same rules as his fellow citizens. After passing his regulations on vehicle idling, for instance, the mayor has been caught running his SUV for hours at a time on multiple occasions. It is understandable that the mayor would want to idle the car for air conditioning on hot days, but it seems hypocritical when any of his fellow citizens would receive a ticket for doing so. Bloomberg’s justification for the idling measure was that “it’s incumbent on those of us that want to leave a good life for our children and want to have clean air for us to breathe and clean water to drink … to really carry the fight.” However, the children and the planet didn’t seem to be the mayor’s top priorities when the law affected him. Are we to understand that Bloomberg’s laws are meant to apply only to New Yorkers, but not to the mayor himself? To the mayor’s credit, he did recently come up with an innovative and high-tech solution: his assistants bring up a standard residential AC unit to the car window before he is scheduled to arrive.
Bloomberg’s imperial style of governing extends beyond his public health initiatives. He put himself in charge of 1.1 million public school students in New York by taking direct control of the city’s public school system, which had been decentralized for over 33 years. Bloomberg was also a staunch defender of term limits before becoming mayor himself. According to the New York Times, he even once called an effort to reverse term limits “disgusting.” But when his second term came to an end, he, of course, fought for extension of term limits. Now serving in his third term as mayor, Bloomberg is back to supporting a two-term limit, arguing that the previous election was an “extraordinary circumstance” because of the financial recession.
It seems that Bloomberg has ruled more like a king than a mayor. He is committed to a staunch paternalistic agenda, but one which he himself is not subject to. Indeed, Mayor Michael Bloomberg stands at the pinnacle of the paternalistic movement in American governance. He may believe that measures such as dietary controls are “government’s highest duty,” but they are not government’s duty at all. I firmly believe that Bloomberg’s nanny-state ideology is deeply problematic, especially in what we tout as the “land of the free.” So for now, I count my blessings that I am not a citizen–or a subject–of New York City.
Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons
The author’s name was removed from this article retroactively at their request.
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.