Wednesday, June 05, 2019

Road to the White House: Part Three: The Contenders

JAZZMAN CHRONICLES:  DEFEATING TRUMP. 



A LONG & WINDING ROAD TO THE WHITE HOUSE

A Presidential Election Analysis from Pretenders to Contenders

Part Three:  The Contenders

By Jack Random


In part one of A Long & Winding Road I submitted an analysis of seven pretenders in the race to capture the Democratic nomination for the presidency.  In part two I provided an objective assessment of ten decided underdogs, including one mayor, three governors, one former cabinet member, one former congressman and four current members of the House of Representatives. 

While each of these candidates has a reasonable rationale for running, not one has a reasonable chance of grabbing the top rung.  Most of them will claim a spot on the debate stage in the early going and some certainly have a chance to gain the second spot on the Democratic ticket. 

We have now arrived at the top tier of candidates, the heavyweights, the genuine contenders for the nomination.  It has been said that every member of the United States Senate believes that he or she should be president.  After decades of observation I see no exception to that rule.  Moreover, by definition, every US Senator is qualified for the ascent to the Oval Office, including those who may appear to us as dimwitted fools with their eyes on the brass ring and their hands in the cookie jar.  Fortunately, none in this analysis falls in that category. 

TIER THREE:  THE CONTENDERS

SENATOR ELIZABETH WARREN

“Our country is in a crisis.  The time for small ideas is over.”  [1]

We have entered the twilight zone in the political season where the pitfalls are many and varied.  Some are as absurd as they are deadly.  Trump buried half the field in the 2016 Republican primary with scandalous labels like Lying Ted and Little Marco and Low Energy Jeb.  He was quick to pick up the Pocahontas label and paste it to Elizabeth Warren’s forehead.  She’s as sincere a politician as there is but she’s having a problem with it.  Her family clearly passed down a false rumor that their genetic line included a significant portion of Cherokee blood.  Modern genetic testing revealed that it was an “alternative” fact. 

The honorable Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts is white.  She has very little native blood.  Why is that significant?  It isn’t.  Many families have wrongly claimed native blood based on family legend.  The Cherokees famously intermarried with Scottish immigrants.  In fact, one of their most famous chiefs was John Ross, the son of a Scottish father and a Cherokee mother.  He led the Cherokees during the tragic period of the Trail of Tears.  Our current president has chosen to vilify the Cherokee while embracing Andrew Jackson, the American president who defied the Supreme Court by ordering the relocation of the Cherokee from eastern Tennessee to modern day Oklahoma.  Jackson committed an act of genocide against a people he befriended as a young man.  Few should doubt that Trump would do the same with immigrants from below the border if he were empowered. 

The president has made it clear he sides with Hollywood cowboys and Indian killers like Custer and Colonel John Chivington.  He’s made it more than clear he doesn’t like anyone with skin color lighter than the circles of white surrounding his beady eyes.  Maybe Elizabeth Warren should give him an Indian name:  Wasichu – the Lakota word for greedy whites – comes to mind.  Or maybe White Eyes will do. 

Senator Warren is fundamentally sound on every significant issue and a true believer when it comes to economic justice.  She has a solid proposal for everything under the sun, including cancellation of student debt, universal healthcare, a Green New Deal and a wealth tax to pay for it.  She has a plan to bring down the cost of housing.  She’s as knowledgeable as a Jeopardy champion and as sharp as a razor. 

I must say her age gives me pause.  She will be seventy on the 22nd of June.  I generally scoff at the notion that someone is a “young seventy” but in her case I believe it.  She has as much energy as Draymond Green in the closing minutes of a championship game.  If anyone can hang on to her mental acuity through her mid-seventies it’s her. 

Aside:  For those who say that considering age a factor in choosing a candidate is “ageism” and comparable to other forms of discrimination, I beg to differ.  Unlike race, sex or sexual identity, old age comes to all who are fortunate enough to survive.  The effects of age vary but they often include lapses in memory and cognitive weakness.  President Ronald Reagan suffered from Alzheimer’s in his second term.  It’s an issue. 

SENATOR KAMALA HARRIS

“We need to begin impeachment proceedings.”  [1]

Kamala Harris of California must put up with the same crap Obama had to endure:  Is she black enough?  Or is she black at all?  It turns out her racial mix is Asian Indian and Jamaican but I really don’t care.  For her entire life she has been perceived as a person of color.  Now she has to be black enough?  No.  Because no white person must answer an equivalent question, the question itself is racist.  The question of race is important, however, because the road to the nomination rolls through the South.  Obama was the first to recognize and exploit the advantage of being black in the Democratic Party.  If Harris is not recognized as “black enough” she will yield that advantage to Senator Cory Booker. 

Harris also has an advantage in an earlier California primary.  While the nation’s most populous state has traditionally been rendered irrelevant in presidential primary politics, it’s rescheduling from June to March is critical to the junior California’s senator’s chances. 

Harris does have some explaining to do.  As San Francisco’s district attorney and California’s attorney general she is accused of failing to embrace criminal justice reform.  She was also accused of suppressing a story regarding a lab technician who fabricated evidence and repeatedly stole drugs from her lab.  Six hundred cases were dismissed and a judge found fault with the district attorney’s conduct.  As attorney general she tried to overturn a federal judge’s decision that the death penalty was unconstitutional.  In 2015 she opposed a bill requiring her office to investigate police officer shootings and she refused to support state regulations requiring officers to wear body cameras.  Finally, Harris defended a number of wrongful conviction cases that might have had merit. 

Harris is at her best questioning witnesses before the Senate Judiciary committee.  Her questioning of US attorney general William Barr pierced his armor of self-righteous circumlocution.  She is at her worst defending her record in law enforcement.  She has without doubt moved to the left in her pursuit of higher office. 

SENATOR CORY BOOKER

“This election cannot be about what we’re against.  It must be about what we’re for.”  [1]

Senator Booker of New Jersey seems to be taking a curious tack in the early going.  Like Obama he is pleading for one America and applying to become the Great Uniter.  It looks like an attempt to capture the moderate vote despite taking progressive positions on healthcare (supports Medicare for All – at least in principle) and the Green New Deal.  He is a champion of criminal justice reform and falls on the progressive side of social issues.  As time presses forward all the candidates must favor impeachment.  Booker has not taken the lead on the issue. 

Here’s where the rubber hits the road:  He supports Israel to the detriment of the Palestinians, his position on trade policy is muddled and his foreign policy is no clearer.  Would we remain in Iraq-Syria-Afghanistan under a Booker presidency?  Would we embrace Fair Trade?  Would we unconditionally support Israel as we currently do or would we attempt to be a fair and neutral arbiter? 

Booker has taken a lot of money from the pharmaceutical industry and voted against a bill to allow the purchase of Canadian drugs.  He will have to make amends in triplicate to qualify for a progressive vote.  At this writing, he is rapidly slipping into underdog territory.  He will have to make an impact during the early debates and if he believes appealing to the middle ground will do it he is mistaken. 

SENATOR AMY KLOBUCHAR

“I don’t have money but I have grit.”  [1]

Senator Amy Klobuchar of the northern exposure state of Minnesota has also planted her stake on moderate territory.  She is from the state where a major bridge over the Mississippi River collapsed in 2007.  Accordingly, she is the first and perhaps the only candidate to propose infrastructure as her top budget priority.  Well known for her Midwest pragmatism she advocates an incremental approach to universal healthcare.  She proposes policies to help farmers and rural communities.  She wants to ensure that the Environmental Protection Agency is on the side of the environment.  She proposes a $100 billion dollar plan for mental health treatment with a large portion of that money coming from drug companies for their culpability in the opioid addiction crisis. 

All of her proposals fall safely on moderate ground.  While she does back the Green New Deal voters will have to wonder how much time and resources, political and otherwise, will be left after her infrastructure initiative.  She pointedly does not support Medicare for All or extending free public education from preschool to university. 

Like most Minnesotans Klobuchar is exceptionally nice, humorous and witty.  I don’t believe those nasty reports of her being mean to her staff.  If you can’t get along with Amy Klobuchar you can’t get along with anyone.  The question is:  Is this the year of the moderate?  So far the answer seems to be:  No. 

SENATOR KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND

“Our president is a coward.”  [1]

Senator Gillibrand of New York succeeded Hillary Clinton in that position.  She was supposed to be a Clinton loyalist.  Imagine the shock in the Clinton household when Gillibrand emerged as the spokesperson for the Me Too movement and promptly threw Bill Clinton under the bus along with the suddenly dishonored senator from Minnesota and former Saturday Night Live cast member Al Franken.  Those who consider themselves left of the political divide may have differing opinions on the relative merits of Franken’s dismissal from public life but the lightning speed with which she tossed him aside was dizzying.  Franken fans, including those who support the Me Too movement, may not be so quick to forgive her.  It seemed just a little too opportunistic. 

Gillibrand is relative young at age 52 and her voting record in opposing the Trump administration is the strongest of any US senator.  She votes against the president on 88 percent of votes cast.  Sexual assault and women’s rights are her trademark issues.  She co-sponsored Medicare for All legislation and supports the Green New Deal.  It seems everyone but Nancy Pelosi is now on board with the GND.  She is against Citizens United.  Who isn’t?  She wants public financing of elections.  Who doesn’t?  She supports comprehensive immigration reform and pledges to nominate to the Supreme Court only judges who would uphold Roe V. Wade. 

While she once advocated gun rights she has since embraced strict gun control.  Ay, there’s the rub.  Too many of her positions seem the product of Clintonian triangulation – even her turn against Clinton.  She was once a proud member of the conservative Blue Dog coalition in congress.  Now all her liberal-progressive credentials seem more opportunistic than genuine.  The early polls seem to agree. 

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS

“We have got to make it clear that when the future of the planet is at stake there is no middle ground.”  [1]

The indefatigable senator from Vermont is running again.  He is a spry 77 years old.  If his stump speech seems familiar it is because he has had little reason to change it.  He wears a badge of consistency and he’s very proud of it. 

Uncle Bernie pretty much defines what a progressive Democrat must be to win the nomination in 2020.  He wants Medicare for All phased in over four years.  He would expand Medicare coverage to include dental, vision and hearing.  He’s for Fair Trade although I’m still waiting for the specifics on what that means.  He wants a substantial boost in the federal minimum wage. He wants the US to be a fair and impartial negotiator in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 

Bernie is curiously moderate on impeachment.  He prefers a cautionary approach.  Along with fellow elder Nancy Pelosi, he tends to believe that impeachment would bolster Trump’s standing.  I don’t think so, Bernie.  If you want to maintain your reputation as the harbinger of the progressive cause, you cannot take the middle ground on impeachment.  It is not enough to say Trump is a pathological liar.  The man broke the law repeatedly and congress would be abrogating its duty if it did not embark on the impeachment path. 

Bernie has revisited the issue of reparations.  Last time around he virtually ceded the South to Hillary when he refused even to consider reparations for slavery.  Let’s not even begin to address the Great Genocide.  Shall we give back the land to its original inhabitants? 

There are many of us who marched in Bernie’s parade four years ago but times have changed.  Bernie’s on the right side of virtually all issues but I’m no longer convinced he’s strong enough on those issues.  He does not seem to get that climate change is paramount and he needs a better answer to substandard living than the federal minimum wage.  When technology replaces cheap foreign labor as the most critical threat to our living standards, shall the federal government serve as the employer of last resort?  Shall we guarantee a living wage to all? 

Finally, there is the matter of age.  How long can Bernie last?  If he does make a run at it, he had better choose a young progressive as his VP.  I can only wish him well. 

FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN

“I’m not Bernie Sanders.  I don’t think 500 billionaires are the reason we’re in trouble.”  [2]

It’s already happening.  That new car scent has worn off and all the dents and scratches and mechanical flaws are coming to the fore.  When you have been in public life as long as Joe Biden has you’re bound to have a few skeletons in the closet. 

As chair of the Senate Judiciary committee, Biden allowed the Republicans to run over Anita Hill with a bulldozer.  He failed to call witnesses who could have backed up her story.  With a silent Ted Kennedy next to him, he enabled the ascent of Clarence Thomas to the highest court in the land.  That’s a ghost that will not go away. 

Old Joe is like the uncle whose off-color jokes, sexist remarks and inappropriate hugs are ignored because, well, that’s just the way he is. 

As hard as it may be to explain his past with regard to women, it is harder to justify his sponsorship of Bill Clinton’s 1994 Crime Bill.  His current apologetic tone notwithstanding, he boasted during a 2007 presidential debate that the Clinton crime bill was originally the Biden crime bill.  For the uninformed the Clinton Crime Bill more than any other single factor was responsible for the mass incarceration of predominantly black and Hispanic Americans. 

Yes, folks, he was proud of putting those darkies away before he was ashamed of it.  After all, it was a different time.  The minorities were less of a factor in national elections and few of them bothered to vote. 

I really hate beating up on the old boy.  It feels a little like elder abuse.  If you think his rivals will overlook the myriad misstatements and misdeeds in Biden’s closet you are mistaken.  It all comes out on the long and winding road. 

If we pretend the past did not exist the present is problematic enough.  Biden skipped the California Democratic presidential forum because he knew what awaited him.  California progressives are not satisfied with old Joe’s homilies.  Elizabeth Warren has a policy for every issue; Joe Biden has a platitude. 

It’s not his fault.  Old Joe is 76.  At 76 he should be at home with the grandkids and great grandkids.  He should be spinning stories at Thanksgiving dinner.  He should be working on spreadsheets for heart healthy diets.  He should be taking daily walks with the dog.  He should be fishing or playing golf or bowling or whatever he is inclined to do at 76.  Get a solid rocking chair and write your memoirs.  Your time for politicking is past. 


So there it is:  A rundown of 23 candidates for the Democratic nomination for president, including seven genuine contenders.  It is not a very satisfying exercise.  It is a process of elimination and it is far more difficult than it should be.  Every candidate has shortcomings.  Every candidate has virtues.  Every candidate must jump through the traditional hoops, pander to the traditional parties and somehow distinguish his or her self from every other candidate. 

At this early stage any one of the contenders can win.  The question for me is:  Whom do we want to win?  My criteria are somewhat at variance with the Democratic Party.  The party seems to be obsessed with the odds of beating Trump.  No one would like to see Trump walk into the sunset more than me but I believe the obsession with data match-ups, critical states and key demographics is going about it the wrong way. 

Doug Johnson Hatlem put it this way:  “This ‘ideological spectrum analysis’ is a junk science rooted in the flawed assumption that the electorate is basically polarized along party lines and that candidates compete for centrists who identify as independents. This view of independents as centrists to be wooed has been debunked over and over and over but persists anyway.  Presidents McCain, Romney, and Hillary Clinton roundly approve of this confusion!”  [3]

Every time the Democrats try to play it cute they end up with a John Kerry playing up his war record instead of his credentials as a peace candidate.  They end up with an Al Gore pretending he never heard of the environment.  They end up with a Hillary Clinton because it’s her turn and it’s time for a woman.  They end up with a Joe Biden because he knows how to talk to these working folks.  It’s not so much how to talk to them, Joe, it’s what you have to say. 

The Democrats have a way of finding a way to lose and it’s always worse to lose when you run someone you don’t really believe in.  We may despise Donald Trump but his people are devoted to him.  More than anything else, the Democrats need someone who believes passionately in a cause.  The last thing they need is someone who wants to work both sides of the aisle. 

I would prefer a candidate who is relatively young, vibrant, confident and knowledgeable.  I want someone who can own a room with his or her presence.  I want someone who is not afraid and will stand up for progressive ideals.  I want someone who doesn’t shudder at the dreaded S word.  The moment I see a candidate backing off or trying to mollify the other side I turn off. 

I wish Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio were running.  I would have liked to see him become the working class candidate I believe he could have become.  Maybe he just didn’t have it in him.  Maybe he’s a family man and no one would wish a presidential campaign on any family.  In any case he is not running and so we’re left with what we have. 

At this early, early stage, keeping in mind that it can certainly change, I’ve run all the data through my processor and arrived at one candidate:  Senator Elizabeth Warren.  Yes, she’s old but she’s not as old as Bernie or Joe and she’s got all the other qualities.  She knows the facts and she’s worked out the policies.  She’s confident, energetic and has the ability to command attention.  Ultimately, the key factor is that she refuses to back down. 

When Trump comes at her with “Pocahontas” I’d like to see her come back with:  “Yes, Mr. Trump, I’m Pocahontas and you’re a billionaire.” 

Enough said. 

Jazz.

1. California Democratic Party State Convention, June 1, 2019.

2. “Joe Biden Clarifies He’s No Bernie Sanders” by John Queally.  Common Dreams, May 9, 2018. 

3. “Electability is Real – Unless Married with the Junk Science of Ideological Spectrum Analysis” by Doug Johnson Hatlem.  Counterpunch, February 20, 2019.

3. “The 2020 Presidential Race: A Cheat Sheet” by David A. Graham.  The Atlantic, April 9, 2019.

JACK RANDOM IS THE AUTHOR OF THE JAZZMAN CHRONICLES AND THE FOUNDER OF CROW DOG PRESS. HIS COMMENTARIES HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED AT DISSIDENT VOICE AND COUNTERPUNCH. 

No comments:

Post a Comment