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.
