The Progressive Divide: Warren Vs. Sanders

LONG & WINDING ROAD TO THE WHITE HOUSE

THE NOTORIOUS PROGRESSIVE DIVIDE

By Jack Random

On January 14 of the new year 2020 six candidates took the stage in the last Democratic presidential debate before the Iowa caucus.  In the absence of Andrew Yang, it was the first all-white debate.  It seems the African American vote has gone all in for Joe Biden. 

Objectively, neither I nor anyone else will ever fully understand why black voters overwhelmingly prefer Biden over Cory Booker or Kamala Harris but the margins leave no doubt.  If Biden prevails and becomes the Democratic nominee he will owe it all to former President Barack Obama. 

For me the most poignant moment in an evening only slightly more entertaining than a constant drone was when moderator Abby Phillip of CNN pointedly asked of former Mayor Pete Buttigieg:  Is it possible that black voters have gotten to know you and have simply decided to choose another candidate?

It was clear from the mayor’s expression he was stung by the question.  It rang true despite the candidate’s claims that blacks in his town support him.  It did not help his cause that Ms. Phillip is a black woman.  The mayor was stung again later in the debate by the same moderator who noted that his healthcare plan would automatically enroll individuals who do not want insurance. 

Buttigieg is a master of the old debate ploy used to avoid any answers that might not serve his interest:  deflect and pivot.  After witnessing the practice a few dozen times it becomes obvious even to his most ardent supporters. 

Mayor Pete’s performance was flat in keeping with a presumed non-aggression pact among the moderates.  He is competing with Biden and Amy Klobuchar but all three refused to engage.  It is in a sense understandable with Buttigieg.  He is counting on Biden to stumble.  It is not understandable with Klobuchar.  She sits in a distant third and desperately needed to pick up ground before the impeachment trial took her and her fellow senators off the campaign trail. 

With Biden the bar has been set so low he could take third place in a second grade speech contest and the press would call it a triumph.  I understand that the senator overcame stuttering as a child.  I get that his age is catching up to him.  But we should never elect a president out of sympathy. 

The fireworks of the night belonged to the progressive candidates:  Senator Elizabeth Warren vs. Senator Bernie Sanders.  Until recently it was considered logical for these two to eventually unite their followers against a decidedly more moderate field.  Warren and Sanders stand for universal healthcare in the form of Medicare for All.  They are both antiwar and believe that military spending should be substantially cut to make way for progressive programs and a Green New Deal.  Both are solid supporters of taxing the elite to improve the lives of common citizens.  Both are pro labor and believers in Fair Trade.  While there are differences in policy and emphasis, their commonalities are far greater than what separates them. 

In what should have been a non-issue, one largely contrived by CNN, the two senators engaged on whether or not Sanders told Warren that a woman could not win the presidency in a conversation that took place in 2018.  Warren said he did.  Sanders said he did not.  Since it was a private conversation we can presume it was not meant for public consumption.  That Warren made it so is questionable in itself.  She persisted to the point of confronting Sanders on stage after the debated ended.  Refusing to shake his hand she said:  “I think you called me a liar on national TV.” 

When it was picked up by a hot mike and broadcast on CNN it became clear Warren wanted a confrontation.  Both Sanders and Warren being honorable individuals, one would have assumed the incident was a misunderstanding.  It is not beyond question that a 76 year-old man and a 68 year-old woman might misinterpret a remark. 

Now it has become a critical issue dividing the progressive front of the Democratic Party.  Now it becomes an issue that could damage both candidates and open the door to yet another Democratic compromise, probably in the form of old Joe Biden, that will likely lose the White House.  From a progressive point of view that would be a disaster. 

Those who have observed electoral politics over time recognize a pattern.  The guardians of the left are notorious for attacking their own. 

Sanders’ supporters are certainly intense.  In their zeal to boost their candidate they played the cards they had.  They argued what many think but rarely express:  That a woman would be less likely to win against Trump.  I don’t believe that.  Maybe they don’t believe it either.  Hillary Clinton lost not because she was a woman but because she was weak on trade policy, because she came with a ton of political baggage and because her weaknesses played to Trump’s electoral college favor. 

Elizabeth Warren has made a stand and in so doing she has forced us to do the same.  We can stand with Warren or we can stand with Bernie.  We can no longer hold out for one or the other to win the progressive mantle. 

As one who has defended Warren against what I considered unreasonable attacks, I can no longer stand by her.  Bernie’s been with us far too long to believe now that he is anything less than honorable.  Bernie was quick to call a coup a coup in Bolivia.  Warren floundered.  Bernie took the lead in condemning the unwarranted and ill-advised assassination of Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani.  Warren wasted time taking the standard mainstream line condemning the victim.  That she eventually found her way to Bernie’s reasoned opposition is commendable but Bernie was already there. 

Strange there was so little discussion of Soleimani’s assassination.  Strange there was no mention of the events in Bolivia or subsequent events in Venezuela.  On matters of foreign policy, military spending and congressional authorization to engage war in foreign lands, Bernie was clearly the best informed and the most principled. 

Warren slips to a distant second on my list of progressive preference.  She needs to back off her attack on Bernie.  Unfortunately, it does not appear that she will. 

It occurred to me in observing this debate that there was very little to engage the curious or challenge the public mind.  Tom Steyer, the newcomer to presidential debates, repeatedly looked into the camera and delivered his prepared appeal.  It did little to persuade.  Steyer may be a good man.  He may have the nation’s best interest at heart.  But he has offered no compelling reason to believe that he is the man to lead the nation in a new direction.  Others can take the lead on climate change and no one believes that term limits is the solution to our problems. 

At least billionaire Mike Bloomberg has held public office.  Neither Steyer nor Bloomberg has managed to make the case that there is anything greater than personal ambition behind their candidacies.  There are far better ways to spend their money and there are far better candidates for their causes.

We have moved on.  The preliminary debates are over.  The senators have been called back to Washington to serve as jurors in the trial of the president.  The strange ritual of the Iowa caucus begins in a few short weeks on February 3^rd.  After that: New Hampshire February 11^th. 

Then the schedule slips into overdrive.  On February 22^nd Nevada will introduce racial minorities, including a significant Hispanic community, into the race.  On February 29^th South Carolina will introduce African Americans. 

The whole contest should pretty much be decided by March 3^rd when California votes along with thirteen other states.  Past that date there will be no pretenders. 

At this juncture, the most likely scenario is that Joe Biden wins the nomination and loses the White House.  I don’t like it but there it is.  On the other hand, anything can happen. 

Jazz. 

Jack Random is the author of the Jazzman Chronicles and Hard Times: The Wrath of an Angry God.