Signs of division — and life — in liberal thinking?

Within the last week, retired Ontario Minister of Finance Dwight Duncan and retiring liberal champion and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg openly abandoned hard liberal pieties on the political power of public sector unions and the wisdom of public ownership of giant public utilities.

Alongside the fine-grain speculation over the feelings of mad men on the right, is it not also interesting that liberals are starting to question the validity of core liberal policy in Canada and the United States?

It’s holiday season and we’re all worn down by scandal. Still, something big is happening: after years of dining out on conservative extremism, intelligent liberals are now questioning their loftiest sound bites. Bloomberg’s concerns about “a labor-electoral complex” may not, immediately, contaminate Hillary Clinton’s meticulous campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016. However, Dwight Duncan’s twitter below may seriously complicate Premier Kathleen Wynne’s plans — and prospects — in an Ontario election within the next 6 months:

“OPG [Ontario Power Generation] should be privatized. Market discipline will be much more effective at addressing the problems than political oversight.”

Brutes and nihilists are expected to complain about crown corporations. It’s news, however, when a leading liberal acknowledges aloud that these institutions will not always serve liberal ends.

Ontarians want to be interesting but never consciously vote for radicals. So, Liberals have told Ontarians for over decade that Ontario conservatives are radicals. You see: some 15 years ago, they actually tried to organize a competitive, private electricity industry. They ran out of luck — and nerve. But their intention at that time has been used to demonize them ever since.

It frays that liberal accusation — to say the least — to read that the former Liberal government’s illustrious minister of both Energy and Finance believes that OPG, one of the largest electricity generation companies in North America, should now operate and sell its power as a private company.

Bloomberg’s Non-partisan PAC: “Damn the Consequences”

The spoiler in the 2000 election was Ralph Nader, an ardent liberal activist who thought the Democrats were drifting to the right. Al Gore could have won that election with just a fraction of the fraction of votes that Nader captured on Election Day.

Today, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a closet liberal that believes Obama is not bold enough on taxes and is unoriginal on human rights, threatens to do with his money what Nader did, one speech after another, on the campaign trail.

Bloomberg has set up a $15-million PAC to support down-ticket candidates with “spines.” The only possible strategic consequence of his PAC and it’s precious rationale is to harm Obama’s chances, and avert our attention from the unavoidable choice on November 6—a nationwide path forward with Democrats and a nationwide path backward with Republicans. A niche of attractive spines won’t change that.

You didn’t need to be a rocket scientist to discover that not choosing to vote for either the Democrat or the Republican in 2000 made a huge difference. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist now to see this election will make an important difference as well.

In his New York Times interview, Bloomberg tried carefully to be evenhanded. Of Romney, he noted that Bain Capital doesn’t give you the experience to run the country and, oh yes, he’s “wrong headed” for his opposition to raising taxes as part of the deal to fix the budget.

Accepting the central plank of Obama’s case against Romney’s platform, you’d think, would be a good sign for Obama supporters. Nope.

Bloomberg resents Obama’s coyness and his presumption on taxes: 

“This business of ‘Well, they can afford it; they should pay their fair share?’ Who are you to say ‘Somebody else’s fair share?’ ”

Bloomberg’s billionaire pales talk like that all the time.

However, it’s bit rich for a politician who has had the courage—and the votes—to raise numerous taxes on New Yorkers to take offense when a presidential candidate lays out what he thinks is a fair way to raise more money.  

Later, he suggests income taxes actually should be raised across the board, implying that Obama’s a wimp. That action, of course, would do severe harm to the recovery. In any event, isn’t Obama’s argument about what’s fair the essence of a substantive democratic election?

On taxes, climate change, guns, same-sex marriage, and abortion rights, Bloomberg is on Obama’s side, and not Romney’s. Nevertheless, in the grubby business of finding enough votes to win a national election, Obama’s not taking enough chances, not attacking on all fronts the way they did every Sunday night on West Wing—or the way Ralph Nader did in 2000.

Unadorned, Bloomberg is not supporting Obama because he thinks he’s got more guts: Obama isn’t showing battlefield valor in selling across America those liberal values Bloomberg represents on the Island of Manhattan.

The election, unfortunately, is not about impressing New Yorkers or influential men who hoard their political capital.