The Last Election

 RANDOM JACK POETRY HOUR: AMERICAN DEMOCRACY

The Last Election

 

Who will you vote for in the last election?

Will you sit this one out?

Are you burdened with doubt?

Are you baffled by a hard selection?

Will you sit and drink a stout?

Don’t you know what it’s about?

Need some time for an inspection?

Listen to the rant and shout

 

Take a while to contemplate

The dire implications

The end of our independent state

The birth of a new nation

Conceived as an autocracy

The death of our democracy

There can be no salvation

 

Get up now and find your voice

Every woman and every man

Vote while you still have a choice

Rise up while you still can

Shame of the Nation

 RANDOM JACK POETRY HOUR: AMERICAN DEMOCRACY

Shame of the Nation

 

To the shame of this great nation

And the electoral college scheme

We elected a golden-haired buffoon

With the power to end the dream

 

We now stand on the very threshold

Of a brutal authoritarian regime

All because we were confused

Between the party and the team

 

And so we voted for an ego

Who thought he was a mighty king

To the cause of his almightiness

Without pause he would do anything

 

Yes we voted for a senseless monster

And we might vote for him again

Just to witness his unhinged revenge

In the event that he should win

 

Say goodbye to our democracy

Say farewell to all our laws

As everything must now conform

To his divine and vicious cause

 

Losing Our Democracy

 RANDOM JACK POETRY HOUR: AMERICAN DEMOCRACY

Losing our Democracy

 

“Once fully enslaved, no nation…

ever afterward resumes its liberty.”

 

W. Whitman

 

Losing our democracy is easy

Offer two parties dominated by money

Until ordinary people stop voting

Promise change but don’t deliver

Until people give up the right to vote

Tell people this is the one true moment

The most important election of a lifetime

The live-or-die a horrible death election

And then badger them for contributions

Every moment of every day

Until they no longer even listen

No longer even care

Turn off, tune out, turn away

Then offer a false prophet

A grifter and a con man

Who promises to fix it all

If only you give him the power

Run him against an old-school politician

Who says the same old things

Makes the same old promises

And fails to show at the critical time

The false prophet takes hold of power

And bends it to his will

Elections are for fools

Laws are for suckers

Power breeds power

He will never let go

The whole system is rigged

Unless he gets his way

And if he ever does

If we ever allow him back in

Strike up the band for the final rites

American democracy is dead

Long live autocracy

Democracy is dead

 

Losing democracy is easy

Building it back is hard

 

Kanye West

 RANDOM JACK POETRY HOUR: POLITICS

Kanye West                                                                                       

 

They say you’re a genius

But I just don’t see it

If you’re a true master

Don’t act it be it

I know you can rap

But you ain’t close to the best

If you’re a stooge for the White House

You don’t pass the test

 

When you stood up to Bush

You earned political cred

But when you stood up for Donald

You earned nothing but dread

You better look at what’s happening

On the streets of the nation

Then look at who’s serving

Your race invocation

You may think you know better

You may think you know best

But there’s no bigger fool

Than Kanye West

 

Yeah you think you’re so cool

You let yourself be used

To betray your own people

Who have been much abused

You may have all the money

But you’re lesser than less

Ain’t nobody worse

Than Kanye West

 

Infant Leader

 RANDOM JACK POETRY HOUR:  DEFEATING TRUMP

Infant Leader

 

To an infant the universe

Revolves around the self

The toddler is all ego

There is the father and the mother

There are no others

 

What can be said of a leader

Who believes a global pandemic

Is all about him?

The killing of a man in Minnesota

Is all about him?

Streets of protest from Portland

To Seattle all about him?

 

What kind of ego must you have

To believe that your head

Should be mounted on Rushmore

Alongside Roosevelt Jefferson

Washington and Lincoln?

 

We are cursed with an infant leader

Who believes he is anointed by god

Who has run the ship into the rocks

And believes he has landed

In the promised land

 

We are cursed with an infant leader

Who is lost in his own fantasies

And believes he can transform the world

By the strength of his will

 

We must break loose from this infant

Before his tantrums destroy the nation

And the world beyond recovery

DEMOCRATIC DEBATE ROUND II: NARROWING THE FIELD

 JAZZMAN CHRONICLES:  DEFEATING TRUMP.

A LONG & WINDING ROAD TO THE WHITE HOUSE

ROUND TWO PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES

Narrowing the Field

By Jack Random

It is fascinating to watch the spectacle of talking heads, editorials and columnists opinionating on the relative success or failure of the candidates based more on their views and biases going in than on their performances on stage. 

It is admittedly difficult to avoid bias in assessing a debate – especially a debate among twenty contestants over two nights with as much organization and structure as a demolition derby.  The event tends to reward the loudest voice though anyone perceived as rude and obnoxious will suffer the harshest consequences. 

Both nights produced clear winners and losers despite the chaos.  Elizabeth Warren won the first night in a relatively calm event and Cory Booker won the second amidst outbreaks of anarchy.  Beyond that no candidates distinguished themselves in any positive way. 

NIGHT ONE:  TIM RYAN, BETO O’ROURKE, AMY KLOBUCAR, ELIZABETH WARREN, MARIANNE WILLIAMSON, JOHN HICKENLOOPER, PETE BUTTIGIEG, BERNIE SANDERS, JOHN DELANEY, STEVE BULLOCK.

NIGHT TWO:  MICHAEL BENNET, KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, JULIAN CASTRO, CORY BOOKER, JOE BIDEN, KAMALA HARRIS, ANDREW YANG, TULSI GABBARD, JAY INSLEE, BILL DE BLASIO. 

ABSENT: ERIC SWALWELL. 

It is tempting to say that Eric Swalwell won by dropping out.  Having made a name with his sharp attacks on the misdeeds of our president, Swalwell should have been the impeachment candidate.  Instead, he gave his “pass the torch” rant and bowed out like a timid protégé who spoke out of turn.  Sorry, Mr. Biden, someone had to say it. 

In his place we got Governor Steve Bullock of Montana and the question is: Why?  He joins the ranks of Tim Ryan, John Hickenlooper, John Delaney and Michael Bennet.  They’re all here to tell us they too are members of the Democratic Party and they’re younger than old Joe Biden.  They know how to do “folks” speech. 

Michael Bennet gets the award for quote of the night when he said to Julian Castro:  “We actually agree on this.  You just said it better than I did.”  Well, Gov, that’s the problem.  There are others who say it better.  Let me introduce you to Amy Klobuchar.  Unfortunately, this does not appear to be the year of the moderate.  This year we only have room for one:  Old Joe Biden. 

On that note it’s time to say goodbye to Congressman Tim Ryan and former Congressman John Delaney – both of whom managed to make pragmatic sound bombastic.  No one demands more attention for less than 1% support than Delaney.  Goodbye Delaney.  You will not be missed. 

Goodbye governors Bullock and Hickenlooper.  We hardly knew you.  Goodbye Marianne Williamson.  I for one enjoyed your spiritual perspective.  Goodbye Mayor De Blasio.  I understand how hard it is to see a mayor of South Bend, Indiana, advance while the mayor of the Big Apple does not but that’s how it played out.  Hopefully, NYC will take you back. 

Sadly, we must also say goodbye to Senator Klobuchar.  Sadly, because she should have been the challenger to Joe Biden for the moderate wing of the party.  Sadly, because she never got the chance to be on stage with old Joe.  She’s sharp.  She knows what she’s talking about and she doesn’t stumble over own thoughts.  She’s what a moderate should look like but it looks to me like she’s gone. 

According to the Times of New York only seven candidates have met criteria for the next round of debates:  Biden, Booker, Harris, Buttigieg, O’Rourke, Sanders and Warren.  Three more are close:  Yang, Castro and Klobuchar.  And three have an outside chance:  Newcomer Tom Steyer, Tulsi Gabbard and Hickenlooper. 

The survivors will face down in September.  If there are more than ten they will take place on two nights. 

Here’s hoping the hammer comes down on more candidates than less.  We’ve seen enough to know that the contest will come down to Old Joe, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris and Bernie Sanders.  Five is a good number for a debate.  These five represent the whole of the party:  Biden is old school.  He appeals to those who pine for Obama and don’t mind that his age is visibly impacting his performance.  Warren and Bernie represent the progressive wing of the party.  They won’t try to moderate their positions.  They know what they believe and they hold strong.  Booker and Harris are moderate progressives.  They’re willing to bend but they are capable of wielding great personal power. 

Some on the left of the political spectrum may be pleased that Representative Tulsi Gabbard took on the role of hit-woman to Kamala Harris.  She accused Harris of deliberately withholding evidence to affect the execution of a death row inmate – a felony – and keeping prisoners behind bars to exploit slave labor.  Never mind the accusation that she enforced the marijuana laws.  We may disagree with it but that was her job. 

I suppose we should thank Gabbard for hurling the kind of accusations that the Trump machine will but it did not look good.  It looked like a hit job.  It looked rehearsed and deliberate.  It hurt Harris but it also hurt Gabbard. 

I went into these debates a Gabbard supporter.  Now I have to wonder about her agenda.  She was the anti-war candidate and I cherished every moment of her deliberations on “regime change” wars.  Now she looks like an attack dog. 

Beto O’Rourke has an identity problem.  There are others who represent the same ideas but are more qualified for the presidency.  His whole case for being the Democratic nominee comes down to Texas.  But he lost his only attempt at winning a statewide race in Texas.  Moreover, there is a Texas senate seat open in 2020.  Drop this ill-advised run and use your substantial resources to take that seat.  I’ve said before and will again:  Taking the US Senate is equally important if not more so than taking the presidency. 

Pete Buttigieg represented himself admirably but it’s time to stop.  We know he represents an under-represented minority but he has never won a statewide election.  If there were no one else to carry the banner I would say carry on.  But there are others.  He has not distinguished his policies from the other contenders. 

Kirsten Gillibrand provided one of the most bizarre appeals to the black vote ever recorded.  It is true that she understands white privilege and can speak to those who exploit white privilege but that is unlikely to persuade a single African American voter.  Gillibrand is bright and ambitious but this is simply not her year. 

Andrew Yang is one of the most impressive neophyte politicians ever to run for president.  His ideas demand to be heard.  He is right.  Technology is already supplanting job exportation as the leading cause of job loss in this nation.  He alone has a plan to cope with that daunting future and the other candidates need to begin addressing the problem.  Yang belongs in the next cabinet and his ideas belong in the debate. 

Washington’s Governor Jay Inslee represented his cause well.  It’s a shame that he does not possess the charisma that would inspire the masses.  He’s right of course.  Climate change should be the overriding issue.  However, not enough of us think it’s a winning ticket.  Inslee should be the next head of the Environment Protection Agency. 

Julian Castro also distinguished himself.  He thrust the immigration debate into the spotlight and demanded that the other candidates take a stand.  As the only Hispanic candidate there is a place for him as the number two on the ticket.  He simply has not managed to garner the kind of support that would elevate him to the upper tier. 

That brings us to the real contenders. 

Can anyone really say that Joe Biden did a good job?  Come on.  Really.  Read a transcript of his statements.  It’s hard to say but Old Joe just doesn’t have what it takes to be the next president.  He was a good vice president to the first African American president in history.  That should be enough. 

I love Bernie as much as most people love Old Joe but it’s time for Bernie’s supporters to accept that he’s a little too old, too crotchety and maybe too angry to take the show all the way home.  Last time he was great.  He was a champion of the people and I was proud to march in his army.  This time there is an alternative and I believe even Bernie knows it. 

Kamala Harris was knocked down a rung in this debate.  It shook her.  She tends to let her frustration show when she’s stung.  It showed.  She got back up and threw some good punches but the air of invincibility shattered.  She’ll remember Tulsi Gabbard and Biden’s bizarre reference to 1000 prisoners being freed.  Both cases are far more nuanced. 

Cory Booker emerged in this round as the one to watch.  He was the one to look into Joe Biden’s eyes and take him down.  Where Kamala stumbled – dazed by a sucker punch from the sidelines – Booker stood strong.  He still has a lot to explain about his policies as mayor of Newark but Biden is not the man to challenge him. 

That leaves Elizabeth Warren.  She is the heir apparent to Bernie’s movement.  Where Bernie tends to become frazzled and appears angry, Warren lays it down in plain fact.  She has the passion, the knowledge and the energy.  She represents the true progressive wing of the party and she does not compromise.  Still, she was not fool enough to label herself a socialist. 

It’s going to be a barnburner – a knockdown drag out fight to the finish.  So far Warren has not found a way to gain significant support of the black community.  That poses a problem she must overcome.  But she has gotten the attention of African Americans with her openness to reparations, her proposals for rebuilding inner cities and her vibrant defense of voting rights and civil rights.  Already she has made inroads that Bernie failed to make in his unsuccessful bid to pull the nomination away from Hillary. 

Whatever happens, the field will narrow and one candidate will emerge to take on Donald Trump.  If you’re a true progressive your primary interest is that it should not be Joe Biden in some misguided notion of electability.  Your next goal is to nominate Warren or Sanders.  If you’re a moderate, you’re rooting for Old Joe but you’ll be fine with Booker or Harris. 

Jazz. 

Note:  This article appears on OpEd News.

“Only Seven Candidates Have Qualified for the Next Democratic Debate” by Maggie Astor.  New York Times, August 1, 2019. 

“Fact Check: Did Kamala Harris block evidence that would have freed inmates?” by Emily Cadei and Bryan Anderson.  Sacramento Bee, July 31, 2019.

GO BOLD! DEFEATING TRUMP IN 2020

--> JAZZMAN CHRONICLES:  DEFEATING TRUMP

THE PRAGMATIC PATH TO DEFEAT IN 2020

By Jack Random

“I think the base of the party wants bold leadership right now, and they might start wondering why the Speaker of the House and the party leader is spending time attacking progressive members. And down the road, they might start wondering what other House leadership might look like.” 

Waleed Shahid, Justice Democrats

There is a war going on within the Democratic Party, pitting the young and dynamic Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez against the elder Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.  It might surprise diehard Republicans that the woman they have vilified for the last three decades represents the moderate voice of the party. 

If we have learned anything from history it is this:  Today’s moderate is tomorrow’s conservative.  The future belongs to the young, the bold and the progressive. 

Say hello to a brave new world, Nancy Pelosi:  Your time has passed.  Yes, you made a point that I made four years ago by paraphrasing Trump’s motto:  Make America White Again.  But when the best you could do in response to Trump’s racist attack on four new members of the House is an invitation for the White House to join you in immigration reform, your time has passed.  You come up short.  You stand in the way of badly need change. 

The resolution of the internal Democratic Party conflict in favor of Ocasio-Cortez is as inevitable as the finality of the third act.  That same conflict is playing out in the selection of a candidate to oppose Donald Trump in the coming presidential election.  On that the future of the republic, the free world and the planet depends on a wise and astute resolution. 

The conflict is between the moderates who have governed the party virtually unrivaled since the election of Bill Clinton and the true progressives who have always been the neglected heart and soul of the party.  The moderates have always argued that the time’s not right to stand up for principles.  We have to be rational.  We have to be willing to bend, to compromise and to work with the other side.  The true progressives always counter:  If not now, when?  We’ve played your game too long.  We’ve waited for meaningful, fundamental change too long.  The time is now!  The people are yearning for change!  Then we give way.

The American electorate is as rational as a caged beast.  The political class repeatedly struggles to make sense of that which does not make sense.  Why did working people vote for Ronald Reagan?  Reagan did more than any other single president to destroy the middle class by eviscerating trade unions in America.  Did workers understand this?  Did they act rationally in assuring the demise of their children’s future? 

Did the American electorate act rationally in electing George W. Bush to not one but two terms in office?  After he had revealed himself a front for the neocon war machine led by his vice president, the people rewarded him with a mandate to continue the destruction?  After he came as close as any leader could to triggering a worldwide depression, who’s to say we would not have given him yet another chance?  After all, he seemed a good old boy. 

Democrat Bill Clinton did more than any other president to close the gap between conservative and liberal, Republican and Democrat, by selling out the fundamental principles of his own party.  Clinton transformed the Democrats into a party of Wall Street with a conscience on social issues ensuring that the people would have even less of a choice than they had before.  Still, the people rewarded him with two terms in the White House. 

It can be argued that the two-party system has offered little choice in selecting a president.  It is undeniable that the Electoral College and systemic corruption often allow for rule by the minority but it does not follow that Americans are rational in casting their votes. 

Reagan represented government of the rich, for the elite and by the privileged yet he is worshipped to this day by ordinary Americans who still remember the iconic leader as their man.  George W. Bush should never have won a first term no less a second and Bill Clinton is still held in high regard among old-line Democrats. 

Americans are not rational.  We are as a group unpredictable and instinctive.  We choose presidents like we select salad dressing:  We stick to what we know and trust unless something catches our eye.  If we’re born Republican we vote Republican unless someone gives us a compelling reason to change.  If our parents voted Democrat we vote Democrat without regard for the issues.  It’s a team sport and we inherit our allegiances. 

Choosing a president according to the law of electability is doomed to failure and always has been.  Donald Trump stole the last presidential election from a field of Republican has-beens and Hillary Clinton because he offered something completely different.  Like Bernie Sanders on the other side, he stood out.  Like a rock star on a stage with folk musicians, he commanded the spotlight.  Rationally, he didn’t stand a chance.  But Americans were and remain sick of the standard politician.  No one believed a word Clinton spoke because she didn’t believe it.  She played out the script without passion or conviction.  Trump called bullshit and with a little help from his friends in Moscow and the Electoral College he took down the political establishment and stood it on its head. 

Four years later we are walking down the same tired path that gave us the least inspired choice from a field of uninspired choices: the path of pragmatism.  The argument goes:  We don’t really care what the candidate stands for as long as he or she can knock Trump around and send him back to Manhattan to face the wrath of justice.  When you start with a false premise, a series of false conclusions follow:  Hillary Clinton lost and Hillary Clinton is a woman; therefore a woman cannot beat Donald Trump.  Trump is a backlash to a black president; therefore only a white candidate can beat Trump. 

These are profoundly wrong conclusions founded on a desperately wrong premise. 

Allow me to play the pundit for one slim moment:  Donald Trump will beat back a pragmatic candidate like a dirty old rug.  Pragmatism is the great compromise.  It is neither left nor right.  It lacks passion because it has no principles or values to guide it.  Pragmatism is afraid of words like socialism, radical and leftist.  A pragmatist trembles at the slightest hint of criticism.  Pragmatism is afraid to call a racist a racist.  A pragmatist follows every statement of substance with a qualifier:  We have to address climate change as the crisis it is but we have to do it in a way that doesn’t damage our economic interests.  We have to get out of Afghanistan but we must protect our strategic interests. 

If it sounds familiar it should.  Kamala Harris wants to withdraw from Afghanistan but “in a responsible way.”  [1]

Former VP Joe Biden supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but now wants us to believe he will end those conflicts.  Biden favored the Trans Pacific Partnership though he insists he supports Fair Trade.  His current positions are as clear as mud, suggesting a strategy of triangulation if not obfuscation.  He doesn’t want you to know what his positions are; he just wants you to trust him. 

Biden opposes Medicare for All because it will spell the end of Obamacare.  He doesn’t seem to realize how badly Obamacare has failed to control the costs of healthcare.  He wants us to know that our taxes will go up but it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that if you eliminate a trillion dollar industry – the health insurance industry – ordinary people will save a great deal despite a raise in taxes. 

Senators Cory Booker and Amy Klobuchar deliver the progressive positions on trade policy and universal healthcare but when push comes to shove they tend to fall back:  Don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good.  [2]

We know.  We understand.  We didn’t let “perfect” stand in the way of Obama’s retrograde compromises on trade (Trans-Pacific Partnership), healthcare (he didn’t even propose the public option) or the longest war in American history (Afghanistan).  We didn’t let “perfect” get in the way of nominating Hillary Clinton.  The progressive left is famous for compromise.  It’s what we’ve always done.  Maybe it’s time we tried something new. 

If you really want to lose to Donald Trump again go down that middle road.  Say goodbye to an army of activists eager to walk precincts and work the phones for a candidate they can believe in.  Nominate a moderate and he’ll be back-stepping from the first debate to Election Day. 

That’s the day we lose.  Again.  To Donald J. Trump. 

If you want to win, nominate someone who possesses the courage of her convictions.  Nominate someone who will call a spade a spade and a Trump a Trump.  Nominate someone who is not afraid of words.  Nominate someone who will fire back when fired on. 

There’s still plenty of time for a candidate to emerge from the pack.  There’s still time for those who have flirted with moderation to find stronger ground.  I’m waiting.  America is waiting.  We don’t want another four minutes of Donald Trump – no less four years. 

Stand up for the people!  Stand up for impeachment!  Stand up for Ocasio-Cortez and the Justice Democrats!  Stand up for Fair Trade, an end to stupid wars and universal healthcare. 

Stand up and you will be amazed at how many of us stand ready to follow. 

Jazz.

1.  Rachel Maddow Show, January 23, 2019.

2.  The People’s View.  “Enemies Among Us:  An Open Letter to Those Attacking Senator Cory Booker,” January 15, 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 22^nd 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.