Manifesto for the Next Four Years

We Know What Needs to be Done

William Sundwick

Joe Biden can get there, with help from Congress. But it will take more than a historic landslide on November 3. It will take clear-eyed commitment from the American (and world) electorate – no equivocating, no shrugging off responsibility, no media “bothsidesism.”

There are things to be done. And there isn’t much time. Right now, in our COVID summer, we should start by acknowledging that old saying “politics is a contact sport” may mean virtual contact sport. Canvassing for voter registration and actual voting can still happen, selectively, and cautiously – but it is much higher risk than in the “Before Times.” Social media discussion groups, sub-Reddits, and email lists must pick up the slack. And nobody ever answers their phone anymore. But volunteer opportunities do exist in all these areas.

Polls currently provide supporting evidence that a well-managed Biden campaign, together with down-ballot help from the DNC, may well lead to that historic landslide. But I seem to recall similar confidence in 2016. We know how that went!

The Biden strategy thus far seems to be to let the President hang himself – minimize his own exposure. It seems to be working.

After Labor Day, however, more will be required. Nobody will get a “convention boost” this year since there will be no live Party Conventions. That goes for Senate and House candidates as well. The battle will continue to be waged largely in the media and virtual worlds.

Biden’s “Unity Task Forces” were a good idea. The 5-3 split on each of the six task forces, between Biden people and Sanders people, was a stroke of genius. Bernie was a full participant in naming members from the beginning. The Democratic Platform drafting process will apparently follow on their 110-page report – although the Platform, itself, won’t necessarily be drafted by the Task Forces. It still looks like the Overton Window has moved leftward since 2016. Clearly a step in the right direction. Enough to force Trump to make outlandish references to “socialism.” This is good. The more he says, the weaker he becomes.

But the campaign between now and November 3 is only the beginning. The real test is what happens after November 3, and after January 20. Expect to hear nothing more about “Build Back Better” after the election.

The Senate is critical. And it presents a higher bar for that potential historic landslide. Mitch McConnell can no longer be Majority Leader. Full Stop. Nothing good can happen if the Republican Party remains in control of one house in Congress. But it may just be possible to push through “compromises” if Democrats gain the majority and control the White House. Even with the filibuster remaining intact.

What are these things that need to be done in the next four years? They include:

1.       A radical response to the climate crisis – it will be primarily economic, the Green New Deal is the model – and it needs top priority in my opinion, considering the enormous scope, and the urgency of the timeline.
2.           Full commitment to scientific research in public health and epidemiology, as well as clean energy matters – science is society’s tool, not its enemy! The pandemic will not be defeated without it.
3.           Make police the servants of their communities, not an occupying army – there is now good momentum for this project, we need to make sure it does not abate.
4.           Reversal of tax policy from the Republican dominance of last forty years – taxes need to be PROGRESSIVE once again, not regressive – and they must openly seek redistribution of wealth, not just income and inheritance – this is the traditional turf of the Left, valid now more than ever.
5.            Most important targets for redistribution’s benefits are health care and education – we need to fully accept that health care is a right for everyone, cost no object – and we must accept that future generations will only thrive if the highest level of education, limited only by abilities and desire, is financially attainable for them – end the starving of public education, end the enslaving of tomorrow’s workers to a lifetime of debt!

This is my five-point manifesto. There may be others. But the political machinery needed to bring it to fruition needs to start with November 3 and continue through local elections held over the next four years – the next eight years. As clear as it has become that the Republican Party is unalterably opposed to these points, it is not at all clear that the Democratic Party is supportive of this manifesto. If there is reluctance among Democratic officeholders to embrace these points, they should be subject to primary challenges. The objective is nothing short of “regime change.”

Change is coming. It is most visible in the younger generation of activists and office seekers – they will ultimately prevail. But it needs to start at the local, grass roots, level. So far, I’m encouraged by the apparent openness of the Biden campaign. The next four years will likely present opportunities to move on some of my five points, but the legislative strategy will have to be subtle and adroit. The White House may listen, but that’s not a given. And Congress may be the biggest stumbling block – even in Democratic hands.

Prepare for a long struggle! It will extend beyond the next four years for sure.

State of the Race

Is the Path to the Nomination Any Clearer?

William Sundwick

We’ve now had two real contests in the 2020 Democratic Presidential primary. There are still polls which we are told are scientifically designed and administered. But, finally, we’re getting down to actual voting. What have we learned so far?

After the New Hampshire primary on Feb. 11, it’s now safe to say that there are five top tier competitors awaiting Michael Bloomberg’s attempt to buy the presidency. It appears that the early states (IA, NH, NV, SC) will eliminate any other contenders – they’re already “suspending” their campaigns at an increasing rate. Super Tuesday on March 3 is the crucial date. My prediction is that we will, by then, have the top two contenders. But I cannot predict beyond that. Will it be a brokered convention in July?

As of now, these are the five top Democratic candidates for president by delegate count:

Bernie Sanders:  Seemingly the overall best bet to win the nomination – except for one glaring problem. He is opposed by the entire Democratic Party establishment! He has the most avid supporters, and they’re young – hence represent the future of the Party. He has the most money (except for the billionaires who are self-financing), and his “base” is probably the most diverse of any candidate’s. The only groups reluctant (or fearful) of getting behind him are the old folks and the affluent. One complication in his path to the nomination: those groups are over-represented among primary (and especially caucus) voters. Traditionally, they’re the ones who show up!

Pete Buttigieg:  After a substantial boost in both early contests – largely because of the arcane first and second alignment rules in Iowa, where he picked up the most support from “non-viable” candidates – Mayor Pete has recently benefited as the “unity candidate.”  He’s probably the establishment’s best hope now of countering Bernie. Old people like him as that “nice young man, and smart, too!” He hasn’t said anything that is too threatening to anybody. And, his supporters can claim to be “woke” because he’s gay with a fine husband. Some polling indicates that young, prosperous, college-educated white people are also included in Mayor Pete’s base.

Elizabeth Warren: Sadly, Liz came in a weak third in Iowa, worse in New Hampshire. News from her campaign was that she was pulling ads in Nevada and South Carolina. Those of us who count ourselves as her supporters felt we needed to step up, both financially and time commitment. She needed us. Her base is apparently white, well-educated members of what is known by Bernie supporters as the PMC (“Professional Managerial Class”). Of course, this group knows best what is good for the country – and must educate everybody else accordingly. My whole family (two generations) are Warren supporters. But, alas, we may need to “check our privilege” – perhaps we don’t represent the heart and soul of America?

Amy Klobuchar: Suddenly, after the New Hampshire primary, Amy has finally realized the “Klobmentum” that commentators have been predicting. Her third-place finish, very close to Pete, and ahead of both Liz and Joe, has caused us to re-evaluate her campaign. Not only does she rip the women’s candidate mantle from Warren but has now transcended her Iowa message of running for “President of the Midwest.” Her message seems to be a positive one: “You’re great people and I like you!” This contrasts with Bernie’s more negative: “Let’s fight the bad guys together!” Both appeal to unity, but positive phrasing often trumps negative.

Joe Biden: Only a few weeks ago, the RCP polling average had Biden on top. What happened? Well, in short, it was Iowa. The fact that he could only muster fourth place in that very selective contest seems to have knocked the wind out of his sails. When Joe gets knocked off his easy-going style he tends to stumble. So, New Hampshire became a make-or-break test for his campaign. It was not good. His base has been much like Bernie’s, except inverted in one critical metric – age! And, a large swath of the Democratic Party elite (the Hillary wing from 2016) have been all-in for Joe from the beginning.

None of the other candidates matter at this point. Andrew Yang, Deval Patrick, and Michael Bennet dropped out after New Hampshire, only Tom Steyer and Tulsi Gabbard remain -- who cares? They may be angling for book deals, cabinet posts, future Senate elections – but, surely, neither expect to be president, or even nominees. And, Mike Bloomberg waits in the wings as we consume his barrage of advertising, even generating polling support and endorsements.

While I believe that any of the top five candidates mentioned above can easily beat Trump, assuming they manage half-way intelligent campaigns in the general election, we did also expect that of Hillary Clinton in 2016. Much attention has been paid by the media to the different “lanes” that these candidates occupy. It seems the underlying assumption in such talk is that some collection of policy positions, an ideology, is a more probable path to victory in November than some other such collection. I respectfully disagree with that assumption. I think most voters don’t identify with specific policy positions nearly as much as they have emotional reactions to the public persona of each candidate. But, if there were different lanes of policy among the top tier candidates, the campaign thus far has made Bernie the sole inhabitant of the Left Lane – he expects to blunt the attacks from Republicans by openly identifying as a “Democratic Socialist,” much as Mayor Pete openly identifies as gay. Once somebody comes out, the attack can easily be turned against the attacker. Not as much an issue as many in the media fear.

Warren has lately sought to move away from that Left Lane, thinking that her main opponent is Pete rather than Bernie. If she is seeking to rise to a solid second choice, that may work. She can attain that status by splitting the difference between Bernie and Pete. Pete is very slippery, hard to pin down to a single lane. Biden clearly dominates the Right Lane among top Democratic contenders. His long history in the Senate, as well as his role in the Obama administration, may allow him to call himself “progressive” by the standards of 20 years ago, but times have changed. Nowadays, the eight years of Obama look like years of moderation and compromise, even a betrayal to some Democratic constituencies. As we know, much of this is due to the astounding lurch to the right of the Republican opposition. And Joe still thinks his strength is that he can “work with” Republicans. Amy echoes much of Biden’s posturing in this regard but may have better control over her messaging. She could be the compromise between Pete and Liz if she works on that.

What about Bloomberg and Tom Steyer? The billionaires self-funding their campaigns may yet be the wild cards in this race. But, with Bloomberg entering the debates because of a rule change, we may see further scrutiny of his profoundly undemocratic quest for the presidency – if that is even his goal. While all candidates are trying to sell themselves to the American people, there seems to be something especially crass about doing it mainly through purchased TV (and online) ads. How many Bloomberg rallies have there been in primary states? How many Bloomberg canvassers will we see knocking on doors? One wonders if Bloomberg isn’t more interested in protecting his fortune from a new regime in Washington than anything else.

If Super Tuesday does not produce a wide delegate lead for one or two candidates, then the prospect grows for a brokered convention. This would mean that the final Democratic contest would be on the convention floor in Milwaukee. Delegates would be traded among candidates, and starting with the second ballot, superdelegates again rear their ugly heads, as in 2016. Today, with only two contests involving actual voting behind us, it’s too soon to speculate on such an event. Iowa was essentially too close to call for the top two, and New Hampshire has produced what will likely be equally short-lived headlines and bounce. Nevada caucuses and South Carolina represent two more peculiar, non-representative, states. March 3 awaits.

Leftist or Liberal?

Where Do You Fit?

William Sundwick

Modern liberalism goes back a long way. Let’s start with John Locke in the 17^th century. He came up with the idea that governments exist to serve the needs of the people. Obvious to us now, but directly opposed to the divine right of monarchs. He was influential even in his own lifetime.  The Glorious Revolution of 1688,  establishing the supremacy of Parliament, was a Lockian idea.

All contemporary democracies are fundamentally liberal structures. The tension with the authoritarian right visible today in the United States and Europe has more to do with anxiety about who should be part of the polity than what that polity should provide its members.

In the 19^th century, tensions emerged with the first industrial revolution. Karl Marx became the icon for those who saw politics as a conflict of power wielded by the owners of capital over those who produce their wealth (workers). That was then. Now, anticipating a “fourth industrial revolution,” it is becoming clear that wealth tends to perpetuate itself – it doesn’t really depend on workers at all! Workers have lost most of the power gained over 200 years of struggle and liberal governance.

Economic prospects seem bleak for all who aren’t plugged into the capitalist wealth machine (mostly residing on Wall Street). It’s the current version of Marx’s alienation of labor. Yet, we’re loathe to divorce ourselves completely from the ideas of freedom and social contract in that very old liberal tradition. The liberal solution to the problem of alienation is based on disincentives for “excessive” accumulation of capital. Primarily, redistribution of wealth via taxation. Real leftists reject this solution as not going far enough to redress the imbalance of political power. And, political power is more than mere economic resources – it’s cultural. Liberals retort that leftists are guilty of “class reductionism.” Liberal societies, after all, allow for social mobility, right?

Class is the focus for the Left in the 21^st century more than wealth -- leave wealth to the liberals, they say. Yes, money is a common denominator in acquisition of political power (especially in the U.S.), but what the Left wants is a reversal of the dynamic behind ascendance of “elites.” Liberals may choose to make everybody happy with more money (Universal Basic Income is the current hot topic in liberal, and neoliberal, circles), but Real Leftists want to throw out the “money people” (Wall Street) from government altogether, feeling that an entirely different class should be in charge. Paradoxically, in the U.S., Donald Trump was supposed to be the kind of person the working class could get behind. Except, of course, he is the bastard child of Wall Street to begin with. Could a Bernie Sanders be the best answer? It’s populism, whether left or right.

Liberals generally counter populism with attempts at making everybody’s life more comfortable. It’s not about power, but comfort. If you give people enough stuff, maybe they’ll go away. Pitchforks come from more than discomfort, says the Left.

If the real contest in democracies is between classes and how much influence they can wield in government, then we should explore what defines these classes – the ins versus the outs. While it sometimes seems that multi-party parliamentary systems have more flexibility in accommodating class struggle, American political history also provides examples of realignments of the two major parties over time.

The Democratic Party of today is a strange (by historic standards) coalition of apparently divergent class interests – Wall Street capitalists find common cause there with communities of color and others who define themselves as marginalized, and with the well-educated minority of the population seeking to protect their privilege. The Republican Party seems to consist of a combination of “self-made” (allegedly) capitalists and culturally conservative religious communities, provincial rather than cosmopolitan in outlook (“people like me” versus “the other”). This bipolar party structure leaves those with strong left-wing convictions no home. It’s usually a story of compromise for American leftists – how much can they stomach to call themselves a Democrat?

So, what do American “leftists” believe? They despise liberals as much as the right-wingers in the Republican Party do. Yet they understand the economic structure of society to be based on exploitation of the labor of people like them. They no longer believe they can achieve “the American Dream” of one day becoming a successful capitalist themselves, probably not even their children. Privilege is so baked into the “elite” classes, who mobilize to protect it, that extraordinary political means are necessary to change it. They don’t want crumbs from the liberal establishment – they want power! How do they plan to seize it?

I have not met a single American Bolshevik – people who believe in a Dictatorship of the Proletariat.  If there ever were such animals, they probably all died out, or were co-opted, sometime around mid-century, during that unprecedented postwar prosperity with high participation of organized labor. Racial identifications with the Left persisted into the 1970s. But co-optation, and intimidation via police violence, mostly put an end to that. Women and young people? We’ve seen some organizing success with women recently (#MeToo movement), but young people will likely be co-opted by forgiveness of student loan debt – and higher starting salaries. That remains to be seen.

Anybody still committed to the Left imagines using social media to mobilize large numbers of people behind left-wing political candidates – and, doing it fast enough to save the planet from ecocide. The media message is crucial, but the goal is to ultimately seize victory through the ballot box. They expect great resistance here, however. Voter suppression and gerrymandering of legislative districts present real threats. And the judicial branch of government appears less friendly with each passing year. But seizing power democratically has long been the hallmark of Democratic Socialists and social democrats alike – the latter not necessarily committed to eliminating capitalism, anyway, hence of questionable “leftist” credentials.

Despite all the sniping at the “Democratic establishment” and resentment of “academic elites,” there remains a basic respect for democracy among the American Left – they have bought into the fundamental liberalism of the last three centuries. My bias here tells me that the liberal project is working. The differences between leftist and liberal will lead to a synthesis: a “Left-liberal” or “Liberal Socialist.” More leftists will be co-opted into the elites, convincing others that, given more attainable education, they too can become part of the governing elite.

The only ones left behind will be those who choose entrenched community traditions over current economic/political reality: otherwise known as conservatives. Looking inward and backward always succumbs to looking outward and forward. 

Debate in Detroit

Is Bloody Combat What We Wanted?

William Sundwick

This is getting to be a spectacle. The second Democratic Presidential Debate was held July 30 and 31 in Detroit. It was marked by much more visceral combat than the first debate in Miami a month earlier. Was this by design? Or, has the temper of Democrats become more frayed over the last month?

The stage was set for the first night, Tuesday, featuring the two giants of the left, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, getting rolled by a gang of lesser polling moderates. Then Wednesday was to be the trial by fire for the titular leader of the pack, Joe Biden. CNN chose its team of moderators: Jake Tapper, Dana Bash and Don Lemon – experts in following the prescribed format emphasizing attack and rebuttal. That appeared to be the plan.

Mostly, it worked. If this is what you wanted, you got it in spades. Night One saw ideological divides drawn sharply between Sanders/Warren (who continued to live up to their reputed non-aggression pact) on the left versus the rest of the stage, except perhaps Pete Buttigieg and Marianne Williamson (independent paths?). Beto O’Rourke seemed lost, not knowing where to place himself. Rebuttals are always easier than affirmative cases in debating, so the dynamic clearly favored Sanders/Warren. Similarly, Night Two tended to favor Biden – he appeared more confident than during the first debate, at least when he kept on script. He even managed a barrage of counterattacks against his tormenters (especially Kamala Harris and Cory Booker).

But some read Biden’s flailing counterattacks as a sign of weakness -- exasperation at continuously playing defense. It seems unwarranted, considering he still holds the lead in polling. He probably got his greatest respite when other candidates chose, instead, to go after each other! Harris vs. Tulsi Gabbard was a good example, or Bill De Blasio vs. Julian Castro. Both secondary fights were initiated with a parrying thrust by one against the criminal justice record of the other. Gabbard had much of the same ammunition that Biden was also using against Harris’ prosecutorial history. Castro attacked De Blasio for refusing to fire the officer who choked Eric Garner to death. Neither target recovered well, and it served to take heat off Biden, at least temporarily.

CNN’s attempt to direct the tone of the debate toward more combat has been seen by some analysts, and candidates afterwards, as an unfair bias toward Republican talking points. If this was the tactic it was entirely appropriate though. Whoever wins the nomination will face those talking points in the general. Nevertheless, it’s not clear that the strategy succeeded in avoiding the obfuscation and deflection that many lamented in the Miami debate. Buttigieg grandstanded when he faced the viewing audience and advised any Republican office holders who might be watching to think of their “legacy” in the history books. Not sure any of them care. Harris declared that Trump’s tariffs are “betraying the American people.” That seemed a tad hyperbolic. But it did heighten the dramatic tension of the event.

Who emerged in an unexpected better position than they went in? Possibly Andrew Yang on Night Two? John Delaney scored a hit on Night One when he became the main spokesperson for the “revolt of the centrists.” And, looking at Sanders and Warren as a tag team, rather than opponents, on Night One was refreshing. One can even fantasize a Sanders/Warren (or Warren/Sanders) ticket in 2020. Their posture on Tuesday was more akin to a “good cop/bad cop” scenario (or A/B marketing tool) than anything else.

With more stringent entrance requirements for the third debate in September, it’s unlikely we’ll see more than seven or eight on stage in Houston. Looking at polling, and performance in Detroit, it seems most likely that we won’t have John Hickenlooper, Tim Ryan, or Jay Inslee to kick around. Likewise, Steve Bullock or Kirsten Gillibrand (she came across Night Two as the less confident “new kid” at the cafeteria lunch table trying desperately to be accepted by the “cool kids”). In any case, getting to 2% from 1% polling average AND doubling total donations is a high hurdle for many of the two dozen candidates.

Even with fewer on-stage appearances, the third debate on September 12 and 13, hosted by ABC, will probably continue to feature drama and spectacle over substance. But perhaps we can divine something about the candidates’ characters from that? Even if we can’t decipher their policy positions.

Read too late to cite in recent post: "And the First Debate Is History" -- but, I concur with author's feeling of disappointment in debate

And the First Debate Is History

What Did We Learn?

William Sundwick

On June 26 and June 27, the DNC sponsored its first Presidential Candidates’ Debate, in Miami. It was hosted by NBC/MSNBC/Telemundo. Who won? Who lost? Did we learn anything? Were there any memorable lines?

Twenty (alleged) candidates for president in 2020 faced off in the two-night spectacle. Everybody watching wanted to see blood on the floor. None of us wants to choose between twenty different politicians and other aspirants very much longer. We want fewer choices for next month’s debate in Detroit, fewer still by September, when the DNC qualifying requirements will be stiffer.

The moderators called the shots. It was Lester Holt, Savannah Guthrie, Jose Diaz-Balart, Rachel Maddow, and Chuck Todd – collectively representing the unspoken corporate interests of the Comcast/NBC Universal empire – who determined the questions to ask, and to whom they would be directed. The ten candidates first night were not asked the same questions as the ten on stage for night two. Yes, all candidates presumably had equal chance to raise their hand in rebuttal, or additional elaboration, so we were told. There was crosstalk and shouting at one another allowed (especially on night two).

The live audience was instructed to restrain themselves -- they laughed at that admonition.

But we still did learn some things. We learned that early labels on the left-right spectrum for the various candidates were probably too simplistic. We learned that some candidates preferred to define themselves by what they were against more than by what they were for. As a high school debater many decades ago, I remember the coach assuring me that the negative position is far easier to sustain than the affirmative (assigning me, a junior, less-skilled, debater to a negative team). And in a few cases, we learned about policy positions we hadn’t heard before, perhaps invented for the occasion?

Also, we learned some things about candidates’ personalities. This leads to the loaded question: what kind of personality makes for the most successful president? We think being forceful about your beliefs is important. Many candidates were. Others tried, with varying degrees of credibility, to sound committed to certain policies.  If they are practicing politicians, we have their voting records to check.

Overly cautious is not a good look in a forum like this. Some candidates sought to differentiate themselves from the main firebrand on the stage (Bernie Sanders) by appearing more cautious, or “realistic” (John Delaney), but that generally led to a performance that most viewers would consider a loss. Optics this year do not favor either caution or reasonableness!

My conclusion from two nights of the first Democratic Candidates’ Debate is that my preferences changed little. My ranking of the top three candidates going into the debates was: 1) Warren, 2) Sanders, 3) Harris. Coming out, only one ranking changed (tentatively): 1) Warren, 2) Harris, 3) Sanders. I guess I thought Kamala Harris’ prosecutorial zeal directed against Joe Biden was impressive. But not much else changed my mind.

That is not to say there weren’t some memorable comments by some of the candidates, which further clarified in my mind who they were but had little effect on my top picks. Here is a rundown of those moments:

Strength vs. caution: this includes clarity of positions.  Andrew Yang was clear in how he would finance his UBI of $1000/month for every American -- a Value Added Tax (VAT) -- okay, don’t care what that means, we know it’s used throughout Europe for public finance. Kamala Harris was emphatic when she stated: “nobody should have to work more than one job in order to provide food and shelter for their family,” cool. Joe Biden, on the other hand, was full of equivocation, getting bogged down in abstruse details of how universal health care would work (he’s against Sanders’ Medicare-for-All). Elizabeth Warren was asked what she would do about Mitch McConnell and the Senate blocking everything good, she replied “I have a plan for Mitch McConnell!” (to thunderous applause from audience). Also, there were statements that fit the old saw “Where’s the Beef?” (Walter Mondale’s 1984 debate line against Gary Hart) – e.g., Biden saying we need to “restore dignity to the middle class” (how?), Julian Castro is in favor of “common sense gun reform” (whatever),  Marianne Williamson invented a label for the absent health care system in the U.S., deriding it as “a sickness management system” (meaning what?), and Bernie Sanders totally ducked the hypothetical, “Roe v. Wade is overturned, what would you do?” (perhaps a bad question from Maddow?).

Most combative moments: these might be either good or bad – Warren asserted the need to FIGHT, make the Roe v. Wade SCOTUS decision LAW! Amy Klobuchar shouted out to Russia: stop stealing our elections!  Sanders’ closing statement asserted, “we need guts to make things change!”  Warren will “give Congress 100 days” to get their act together, then ban assault weapons by executive order. And, the most famous moment of the entire two nights: Harris’ full-frontal attack on Biden for his racist connections in the old Senate, considered by some pundits to be a game-changer so far in the primary.

Humor: sadly, not much humor was visible on either night, it would have gone far toward warming our hearts to some of these candidates. Eric Swalwell did illustrate something when he said “as a parent of a two-year-old,” changing dirty diapers often smelled better than serving in Congress – and Harris managed to interject some early levity into night two, when she managed to get the floor after a cross-talking shouting match saying “America doesn’t want to see a food fight” (setting the tone successfully for the rest of the evening). Humor might have been used to establish dominance of one candidate over another -- but wasn’t.

Magnanimity: some candidates feel they can trade on magnanimity, or generosity, as part of their persona. We saw examples of this personality trait (contrasting with current occupant of the oval office) from Kirsten Gillibrand, who took pains to describe her objection to Sanders’ program by saying “there’s a difference between capitalism and greed” (won’t dispute that).  Or from Harris, who gently admonished the president by saying he “could use his microphone in a respectful way.” Cory Booker offered on the first night that the “humane” way to deal with immigrants is not to criminalize their being here in the first place, thereby offering full support to Julian Castro, who had just floored the audience with his detailed proposal to repeal sec. 1325 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (which most of us never knew by its full legal name).

Winners and losers:  hard to say, but we always want to evaluate performances in such debates. The most new Twitter followers coming out of night one went to Julian Castro, but that may have been simply because he was less well-known around the country – and, he impressed viewers. The post-debate analysis after night two, by the MSNBC and CNN crews, was that Kamala Harris hit it out of the park when she landed squarely on Biden. Biden lost, Harris gained, but so did Warren after night one, and Buttigieg and Yang after night two.

Let’s be honest, we want to see some clear losers at this point – more than winners. If Williamson struck out on the second night, so be it. If Gillibrand or O’Rourke just seem too glib to be believed, fine. This is what we wanted from the debate. We don’t care about John Hickenlooper and his assertion that “socialism isn’t the answer” any more than Delaney’s belief in a “realistic” policy approach. We object to Tim Ryan’s characterization of anybody living on the east or west coast as part of the “elite,” out of touch with fly-over country. And, we don’t want the country run by a Silicon Valley tech geek who won’t even wear a tie on the debate stage (Andrew Yang).

Many of them probably hope for cabinet posts or book deals. That’s fine with me. I just want to see no more than five or six on stage by the third debate in September.

Great opinion piece from Slate -- follow-up to "2020 Campaign Notes" -- Joe Biden, the counter-intuitive candidate?

All Dem presidential candidates sorted by three strategies? a) unity (Biden's bi-partisan "epiphany"; b) revolution (Bernie's political mass movement); c) change the system (Warren's anti-corruption measures, seriously almost more left than Bernie!)

2020 Campaign Notes

Warp & Woof Has Opinions

William Sundwick

Twenty-two candidates and counting*. That’s where we stand with Democratic presidential contenders for 2020. The first Democratic debate will occur late next month, and the bar for inclusion on the debate floor is low: either a 1% showing in three different authorized polls or 65,000 unique donors spread over 20 or more states. As of May 9, 18 of the 22 declared candidates had met one or the other of these easy requirements. There will be two nights, with each candidate assigned randomly to one. That means the leading candidates may not even be on the stage together in Miami.

So, what are we voters to make of this field? Do we know enough to distinguish platitudes from real policy proposals? Does it even matter? Perhaps the best way to choose in the primary is that “gut feeling” about the candidate that policy wonks despise.

It seems clear that not all 22 of the contenders really think they could become the 46^th President of the United States. Reasonable guesses about their motivations for running include advancement of their respective political (or financial) careers, or possibly a cabinet post in the administration of whichever one of them wins. We will see maneuvering as the campaign season progresses, with lower-ranking aspirants dropping out and throwing their support to one of the leaders, hoping for whatever rewards this may provide. It might be fun here to speculate on where the candidates fit on the political spectrum.

As it looks now, trying to accommodate both their backgrounds and publicly announced policy positions, a rough sorting of leading candidates – from left to right – might look something like this:

Sanders à Warren à Booker/Williamson à Harris à Buttigieg/Castro à O’Rourke/Gabbard à Inslee à Gillibrand à Klobuchar à Bennet/Hickenlooper à Biden/Delaney

Only 16 names appear in the schema above. Among the others:

•           Andrew Yang has made a splash with a fervent defense of UBI (Universal Basic Income, a set amount of money payed out to every citizen, no work requirement, via monthly check),
•          Mike Gravel (88-year-old former Senator) has a campaign run by two teenagers based on dismantling U.S. imperialism,
•          Tim Ryan and Seth Moulton (two Congressmen who opposed Nancy Pelosi for Speaker),   

•       E ric Swalwell (another Congressman who is trying to capitalize on his cozy relationship with MSNBC hosts, and focus on gun control),
•           Wayne Messam (mayor of Miramar, Florida – a bigger city than South Bend – and he’s African-American).

All of these are probably best seen as quirky opportunists, devoid of a solid place in the left-right spectrum.

Without going into nitpicking about how I came up with my idealized spectrum, it’s worth noting that none of the major candidates, except perhaps the two front runners, Sanders and Biden, see any advantage in clearly articulating where they see themselves on this spectrum. Bernie is happy to be the darling of the Left. Biden is happy to anchor his support among older “moderates.” They both believe that victory in November 2020 will belong to whomever can capture that respective territory. The rest aren’t so sure, so they appear to shift ground from speech to speech, interview to interview. That makes it difficult to place them on a spectrum.

Nobody knows the most “electable” posture for a candidate – it may not even be related to any policy positions. It may come down to who they are, not what they propose. It seems supporters of one candidate or another will be totally convinced that THEIR candidate is MOST electable. Polls show a range of results for one-on-one matchups against Trump, but they tend to defy easy analysis. Most major candidates can probably beat Trump. If there is a bias toward beauty vs. age, that certainly doesn’t explain Sanders and Biden sitting on top of those polls. Youngsters Buttigieg and O’Rourke do relatively well, but they’re not at the top. Gabbard has gone nowhere.

A presidential landslide would be good. That is what’s needed to retake the Senate. More Republican incumbents this time will be facing re-election contests (22), fewer Democrats (12). Unfortunately, most of those Republican Senators have well-established constituencies, difficult to break unless an extremely strong top-of-ticket Democrat is nominated in Milwaukee. Mitch McConnell is up for re-election in 2020, and could be defeated even if the Senate doesn’t flip.

Should impeachment be on the table before the election? Speaker Pelosi, as of now, is reluctant to embrace it. Yet, some presidential candidates are endorsing it (Warren, Castro, Harris, Moulton). Of course, the presidential candidates saying they support impeachment means it’s not an issue if they win! Perhaps that’s why it’s easy for them to support it, but hard for the current Speaker of the House.

Warp & Woof has opinions on the election campaign. Rule number one: don’t worry about labels. Republicans will call any and all Democratic policy proposals “socialist” – Bernie’s embrace of the “Democratic Socialist” label means nothing to voters, unless they plan on voting Republican anyway. And, his supporters need only point to real leftist commentators who dispute that he even is a true-blue Democratic Socialist (more a social democrat, in the European mold). But, if your middle class, or upper middle class, sensibilities cause you to feel funny about a socialist label, there is always Elizabeth Warren, who has virtually indistinguishable policy proposals from Bernie (even more radical, in some cases), but claims, like FDR, to be “saving capitalism.”

Moving rightward along the idealized political spectrum above gets you nothing except hedging your bets on what focus you want. It’s more a matter of style than substance. Jay Inslee, for instance, is the “climate” candidate, but his detailed climate plan* differs little from Beto’s, introduced a few days earlier. Booker is the “cities” candidate, but we all know that the American economy relies on more than urban production -- if there’s more money concentrated in cities it’s because that’s where the capitalists are. Gillibrand wants to be the “women’s” candidate, but half of us are men. Pete is very slick – but who is his base? (If well-educated LGBTQ folks, fine, but how many of them are there?)

Warp & Woof thinks it’s obvious that going all the way to the right, for Uncle Joe, would be tantamount to an abject surrender to Republicans – even if he wins. He didn’t represent the best of the Obama years, but was likely a “balance” V.P. candidate.

*latest news, since drafting this post, Montana governor Steve Bullock and New York mayor Bill De Blasio have announced (#23 and #24, respectively). Neither of them has earned a place in my spectrum yet. And, Jay Inslee has revealed a second climate plan, more comprehensive than the first, falling just shy of where the Ocasio-Cortez/Markey Green New Deal landed in February.

Ramping Up

Summer Ground Game Coming

William Sundwick

Over the last few weeks I’ve been in a real funk over the daily outrage in the news cycle. I sometimes feel like my only solace is to unplug myself from the outside world. But, something inside me runs counter to that impulse – I can’t allow myself that indulgence. I must make sense of what is happening around me.

Being saved from despair requires action. I can’t ignore the constant drumbeat about the state of American politics, and the world, but I can give it perspective. It’s important, and somebody is managing that drumbeat – there is a plan behind it. The media’s plan is to engage us, they want outrage, they want eyeballs. If they want responses. I am responding this summer. Participation in the political process, the ground game, is my secret for overcoming fear. What started as disgust is beginning to melt into depression now. It must stop.

For me, the greatest challenge of the last month has been the Trump administration’s “Zero Tolerance” policy on the border. They have taken accepted international law on asylum for refugees and rejected it wholesale. Separating children, even babies, from their asylum-seeking parents is cruelty unworthy of our country.

Attending the #FamiliesBelongTogether march at Lafayette Square on June 30 presented me with one of those steeling opportunities for action. Not as big as #MarchForOurLives in March, but what it lacked in focus, it made up for in timing. Now is the time for action regarding the November elections. The ground game is underway.

 Marches help, but they need to be followed up with volunteerism. Virginia volunteers proved their mettle last year when an unprecedented 15 seats in the House of Delegates flipped. So, this year we need to focus on certain Congressional districts which are eminently “flippable.” Out of a total delegation of eleven seats in the House, there are only four Virginia Democrats. Two or three additional Democratic seats are within easy reach this fall (especially the VA-7, Abigail Spanberger, and VA-10, Jennifer Wexton).

Few doubt all incumbent Democrats will be re-elected (including Sen. Tim Kaine). Living in bright blue Arlington might suggest local apathy, except that even the Arlington County Board has one seat that Democrats can gain, with a challenger to established Board member John Vihstadt. It’s a great local contest – friction point being affordable housing advocacy vs. NIMBY fears. Matt de Ferranti is that young Democratic challenger. 

Beyond Virginia, however, prospects are less clear. I hear and read lots of political analysis. I can’t pull away from the apparent train wreck of national politics. It seems that we’ve devolved into two antagonistic tribal societies in the United States. I need to think that there must be a path back to a somewhat more unified country. But, what is it?

The first sign of dysfunction, visible in the 2016 Democratic Presidential primay, was the splitting up of the Democratic Party. No longer a unified national party, and not the old New Deal/Southern Democrat coalition that had been familiar for some eighty years. Dems were confronted by a deep ideological divide, left vs. center, so it seemed. But was it real?

Since the 2016 election, much time has been spent trying to “understand” Trump voters – what were they looking for? What did Trump say to them? My only conclusion as a consumer of much of the punditry is that whatever the message of Trump and Republicans, it’s not a message understood by the new elite of the Democratic Party – the professional class of East and West Coast cosmopolitan urban areas. That may be fine given the changing demographics of America, except that this new elite needs to work harder in traditional Democratic constituencies, especially white working-class voters (male and female) who treat them with profound distrust.

We also know that few voters are knowledgeable about the actual mechanics of public policy – they are ideological only on a symbolic level, not a policy level. This is uncomfortable for candidates who feel they must explain “where they stand” on specific issues. They just need to speak the language of their voters, use the correct buzzwords, that’s all! We’ve seen successes at getting the right mood going in special elections so far. These candidates will be the winners in November. It’s intensity of emotion, and symbolic language, not policy, that will carry the day.

Long-oppressed groups, like communities of color, speak one language. Working class whites speak another. The latter now see themselves as threatened, the new “hopeless ones,” especially in rural areas ravaged by opioid abuse and unemployment. Their language expresses fear and sense of loss, the most acute emotion for the Trump loyalists. Those accustomed to marginalization, on the other hand, feel they are on their way up in American society -- or were, until the 2016 election. The pernicious influence of money in politics tends to exacerbate the divisions. It seeks to vilify “the other” – whether it be race, gender, or class. The worst possible outcome for those moneyed interests would be a united front of ordinary Americans focused entirely on them, and what they do with their money. Much better to keep Americans fighting among themselves!

With the supercharged news cycle that we see these days, it’s hard to predict what will happen tomorrow. The news cycle is managed. It is managed both by the media and by the White House itself. Those tweets from the President are not accidental. Neither are the leaks. The best that can be said about the proliferation of Internet news outlets is that a multiplicity of sources makes managing the flow more difficult. News consumers have effectively more power in this rich environment, if they know how to use it.

And, we feel it. The streets are alive with protest – it’s not that difficult to organize demonstrations in major cities simultaneously, each drawing tens of thousands of marchers. We know we can identify and promote the good -- or identify and discourage the bad. Not just in mass demonstrations, but in the political ground game as well. We can canvass and phone bank. We can open our checkbooks. We can even find where cabinet officers dine out and confront them individually!

Perhaps the “arc of the moral universe is long but bends toward justice,” as MLK said in 1956, but we can move it on a steeper curve if we commit ourselves to action. And, being part of a team is much better than sitting all alone in our righteousness. Interaction with teammates tends to get more things accomplished. It’s also a balm for the ego.

Alex Jones of InfoWars said that “Democrats” were going to start the second civil war on July 4. So, on July 5 I did my first “Beyond Arlington” phone banking shift calling infrequent voters in Spotsylvania County, urging them to vote for Abigail Spanberger to replace Dave Brat. It felt good!