Joe Biden is in the race, and he and Bernie Sanders are the front-runners. Will the two aging warriors simply re-enact the philosophical rift of 2016 and thereby put the 2020 election at risk? If we can
see it coming so clearly, Steve asks, can we do something about it?
Well, if finally happened, but it
took the long-awaited release of the Mueller Report to do it. After six weeks
of riding a media meteor, Mayor Pete Buttigieg was temporarily knocked out of
the A bloc on cable news last week.
Building for weeks, PeteMania
reached critical mass when the boyish mayor of South Bend spoke brilliantly in
formally announcing his candidacy for President. Pundits drooled at the
weapons-grade resume, fly-over charm, and the seemingly bottomless wellspring of
wisdom, reason, and insight flowing from the young mayor, creating a black hole
for news coverage that sucked the oxygen out of competing campaigns. And when
he sent his condolences about Notre Dame to the people of Paris in perfect French…
Alors! Sois tranquille mon coeur!
Joe finally knew that he better stop
Biden his time, Amy probably realized that she’s getting clobber-chared,
and Swalwell’s that ends well... just that quickly, Pete had muscled his way into the top tier.
Bernie Sanders was the only
candidate able to hold his media own in the midst of the Butti-fest,
gamely going toe-to-toe with Fox News hosts in a town hall meeting. Loaded for
Bret Baier, Bernie left his Fox hosts stunned when the audience lustily cheered
for Bernie’s Medicare-for-all proposal, and were generally enthusiastic about
his challenge to Donald Trump to match Sanders’ release of ten years of tax
returns.
Today will be Joe Biden’s day in the
sun. The Party's éminence grise, eternal happy warrior, and occasional grandpa faux pas formally has announced his third run for the White House, a full thirty years
after his first try.
What with Mueller, Barr, talk of impeachment,
PeteMania, and now Joe's launch, it’s fair to assume
that you may have missed two lesser tidbits that have interesting implications
for the Democrats going into 2020.
A few days back, speaking in
Germany, Barack Obama spoke about the danger of rigid philosophical positions
and extremist views in the progressive space. He issued a clear warning to the
Democratic Party: the danger of ideological litmus tests is that they alienate
Democrat from Democrat, and can create the sliver of an opening that is all
Donald Trump will need to be re-elected.
"Among progressives in the
United States ... is a certain kind of rigidity where we say, 'Uh, I'm sorry,
this is how it's going to be…creating what's called a 'circular firing squad'
where you start shooting at your allies because one of them is straying from
purity on the issues."
Barack Obama has generally been very
reserved about leveraging his role as the senior statesman of the Democratic
Party. When he chooses to speak, we would all be wise to listen.
His message was a warning that the
growing rift between ideologically-fixed progressives and centrist pragmatists
could rip the party asunder, much as the Tea Party did to the Republican Party,
turning the once-proud GOP into a soulless swamp of spineless
suck-ups, sycophants, and slime. We have met the enemy, Obama was saying,
and he or she may be us. Donald Trump may not be able to beat the Democrats, but
internecine warfare could.
Please, the forty-fourth President
seemed to be pleading, please don’t do that again.
However deftly delivered, Obama’s
message probably landed like salt on unhealed wounds among those who continue
to litigate the 2016 campaign. Supporters of Hillary Clinton still harbor
resentment at what they perceive to have been the tepid support Bernie Sanders
offered for their candidate. Bernie supporters, in turn, believe that the
Democratic establishment rallied in 2016 to guide the nomination to a flawed and ultimately losing candidate. Perhaps even more profoundly, Sanders’
supporters may believe that the centrists had their shot in 2016, and that 2020
is their time.
Have any doubt that the animosity
lingers? That leads to the second news item that was overwhelmed by Mueller Madness and PeteMania.
The New York Times reported that Sanders had sent a def con 5 letter to a
liberal think tank with close ties to the Clintons claiming that it was “using
its resources to smear him.” Sanders charged that The Center for American
Progress was using the news that Bernie’s best-selling book had made him a
millionaire as grounds for characterizing his “common man” appeal as disingenuous.
The unfriendly fire smolders. Still.
Call it a case of ABiden’ Heart Bern: it is the fear that
the ideologues and centrists have already cast their support in stone. The most
progressive wing of the party could rigidly align behind Sanders or Warren, and may not be wholly committed to a ticket that does not have one of
these candidates on the top. That would be an extremely dangerous situation for
the Democrats. In an aggregated look at recent polls, the Sanders/ Warren
segment of the party represents a full a quarter to a third of the voters.
Exacerbating the problem: these
candidates may be more polarizing than the centrists. A recent Monmouth University
poll of Iowa voters showed that the two candidates with the highest “unfavorable”
ratings among Democrats were Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. It could be that the very extremity of their positions invites a binary reaction. So
centrists are likely to return the favor… if Sanders or Warren wins, they may
be cool to the ticket, and less likely to turn out to vote.
No wonder Barack Obama is already
worried. It’s pretty easy to see that the internecine battle of 2016 could be
rekindled with Bernie re-enacting his role as the “outsider,” and Joe Biden inheriting the Hillary Clinton role as the pragmatic
centrist, the darling to the party establishment. If the epic struggle between
the two wings of the party is replicated in 2020, the collateral damage could
be handing the White House to Donald Trump for a second time.
Add to the toxic soup one final
dollop of unsavory reality: the younger of these two guys was the one born
eleven months after Pearl Harbor. The two front-runners for the Democratic
Presidential nomination for most profound election of our lifetime are two aging
white guys who each now lead the opposite ends of the ideological split that is
rending the Democratic Party.
It is a formula for disaster.
But if we can see it so much more
clearly this time – and so far in advance – can we not take steps to avoid the
type of bitter alienation that costs the party the votes it will need to beat
Trump?
For starters, this backdrop might begin to explain the startling appeal of a 37-year-old gay mayor of a small
mid-western city. Sure, Pete Buttigieg is brilliant, articulate, original,
and has a ready answer to every question that is thrown his way. But perhaps a different reason for
his appeal is that a portion of the Democratic electorate has already intuited that it must cut bait on the debacle
of 2016 and find an entirely new answer. The answer to Donald Trump does not
lie in going back to the grizzled party veterans. It is time for a clean
slate, fresh blood, no biases, and no clan-like behavior.
A bit like what happened in 2008 with a fresh newcomer named Barack Obama.
It is, as Mayor Pete has so
eloquently noted, time to reframe the essential issue. The very existence
of Democratic “sub-brands” (“progressive ideologues,” “democratic socialists,”
and “pragmatic centrists”) cuts the party into slivers at a time when it most
needs to be united. Buttigieg is trying to define this election in new
terms by providing a holistic framework that is not based on old labels. While
his competitors seem to be drifting toward single issue candidacies – Kamala Harris
with education, Cory Booker with justice, Jay Inslee with climate change – Buttigieg
has created a generational and values based message that unifies a wide range
of policy issues. The youngest candidate is creating the biggest tent.
Which brings us once again back to
the wisdom of Obama.
In sending his warning to the
ideological wing of the Democratic Party, Obama is making a simple
point: ideologies do not win elections. Human beings do. The best ideas
conveyed in a weak vessel will not win. And just as surely, a wobbly message in
a charismatic vessel is not going to carry the day either, as Beto O’Rourke is discovering as he is works his way toward his own clear and differentiating message.
Obama is asking that we make sure
that we have both, in balance. A powerful candidate who can connect with voters,
and whose heart and whose policy mostly in the right place. Passionate policy ideologues believe
that the candidate who is most aggressive in espousing progressive ideology is
the right candidate. The most strident advocates of the most
“democratic socialism” policies – single payer healthcare as the most obvious
example – have already picked their candidate. Most likely it is Bernie Sanders
or Elizabeth Warren. They have already decided.
But the centrists, on the other
hand, are more inclined to see who emerges as the most effective, compelling,
and persuasive campaigner. They are scattered across a wide spectrum of
candidates, and are likely most found in the “no preference” category in the
early polling. By definition, they are more open-minded to learn about each
candidates. It’s easy to know what policies candidates support. But only time will
tell if they can prove themselves to be winners.
Ideologues are lukewarm about
centrists candidates because they think they are wishy-washy on policy.
Centrists are lukewarm about ideologue candidates because they think their
extreme policy stances and rigidity make them unelectable.
Here’s a crazy theory: one wonders
if “Joe Biden” is actually really that high up in the polls, or if “Joe Biden” is
simply a placeholder for a candidate who is really named “the person with the
best shot at beating Trump.” Whereas a Bernie supporter is
passionate because he or she believes that universal healthcare is critical, a
“Biden” supporter passionately believes that the most important task is to beat
Trump.
Barack Obama is telling us not to
shoot each other over rigid policy litmus tests, but to find out which
candidate has the best chance to beat Donald Trump, and then rally behind him
or her.
Which, in the end, is the entire point. How do Democrats slog through a year of internecine debate, conflict, possible animosity, and lingering anger, and manage to emerge completely unified in the urgent need to defeat Donald Trump?
Which, in the end, is the entire point. How do Democrats slog through a year of internecine debate, conflict, possible animosity, and lingering anger, and manage to emerge completely unified in the urgent need to defeat Donald Trump?
Here’s a wild wish: we all ought to
make our donations to Democratic candidates conditional. What if we demanded that every candidate offer this option on their fundraising page:
“I am sending this check to Julián Castro on the following conditions:
1. That Mr. Castro commits to rigorously supporting the candidate who emerges as the winner of the Democratic nomination.
2. That Mr. Castro vows that he will not run negative attack ads against fellow Democrats.
3. That Mr. Castro will provide access to his list of donors and supporters to the Democratic Party for general election purposes whether he is the candidate or not.
If Mr. Castro fails to meet this standard, I will demand the return of my contribution.”
“I am sending this check to Julián Castro on the following conditions:
1. That Mr. Castro commits to rigorously supporting the candidate who emerges as the winner of the Democratic nomination.
2. That Mr. Castro vows that he will not run negative attack ads against fellow Democrats.
3. That Mr. Castro will provide access to his list of donors and supporters to the Democratic Party for general election purposes whether he is the candidate or not.
If Mr. Castro fails to meet this standard, I will demand the return of my contribution.”
It may be crazy, unworkable, and unrealistic. But it makes a point. The dollar I am giving to you is in part supporting you, but it is also an investment in beating Donald Trump. I demand a full return on my investment.
Which brings us back to the soaring ascent of Pete Buttigieg, who is simply proving that Barack Obama is right. People vote for human beings, not for policies. Only the human beings who win the White House are in a position to enact policies. People are responding to Mayor Pete's authenticity, his reason, his decency... and perhaps, above all, that he seems intent on taking the fight to Trump, not to his competitors for the nomination.
Which brings us back to the soaring ascent of Pete Buttigieg, who is simply proving that Barack Obama is right. People vote for human beings, not for policies. Only the human beings who win the White House are in a position to enact policies. People are responding to Mayor Pete's authenticity, his reason, his decency... and perhaps, above all, that he seems intent on taking the fight to Trump, not to his competitors for the nomination.
No one in the democratic, liberal,
or progressive space can afford the heart bern of a divided Democratic
party handing over the White House, the government, our democracy, and the
future of the planet to another four years of Donald Trump.
Yeah, lots of people are intrigued
by Pete Buttigieg. Kamala is an immensely compelling candidate. Bernie
Sanders has been the most influential thought leader in the party for years.
Joe Biden is an essentially very good human being who could get this country back on track. There are lots of terrific candidates on the Democratic side.
Barack Obama is telling us to not be
open or closed to any candidate because they do not meet some ideological
litmus test. He is urging us to be open to all
the candidates. To listen closely and to learn as much as we can. And then
to accept that whoever wins the nomination is the candidate of all of the
Democratic Party.
Most important: he is urging us not to inflict needless wounds and collateral damage on the very individuals we may turn to in order to save this country from Trump.
In the end, we -- as voters -- should make a pledge that mirrors what we would ask of candidates:
"Whoever wins the nomination, I pledge that I will fight tooth and nail for his or her election. This election is too important to let disappointment, alienation, anger, or frustration cause any one of us to turn away from job #1: ending the Presidency of Donald Trump."
Listen to the words of the greatest
President of our era, who warned us of circular firing squads.
Be open minded. Listen. Learn. Take
your time.
Sure, you can tell your friends that
you already know who you are going to support.
Tell them that his or her name is
“the person with the best shot at beating Donald Trump.”
If you would like to be on the Born To Run The Numbers email list notifying you of each new post, please write us at borntorunthenumbers@gmail.com.
