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 3rd. After that: New Hampshire February 11th.
Then the schedule slips into overdrive. On February 22nd Nevada will
introduce racial minorities, including a significant Hispanic community, into
the race. On February 29th South
Carolina will introduce African Americans.
The whole contest should pretty much be decided by March 3rd
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.
