--> 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.
