Grassroots/Hank Kalet

Let’s Get Ready to Rumble

Donald J. Trump poses a real danger to the American project, and defeating him must be the left’s main priority in 2020.

This does not mean, however, that we should leave our critical faculties at the door, as many seem ready to do. A vibrant primary season in necessary, one in which the 12-15 Democrats seeking the nomination get to make their case while also explaining their very real warts. And yet, many are describing this approach as the “circular firing squad,” as though the candidates will be damaged by a rough-and-tumble campaign.

That, I believe, is what we should want.

While data on the impact that tough primaries have on general election races is mixed — a 2016 study seemed to support the proposition that competitive primaries can create problems, other studies tend to support the opposite point of view.

Absent conclusive evidence I would argue that the function of primaries, especially for president, is two-fold:

1) to take the temperature of the party base.

Primaries tend to be won by appealing to the most committed members of the party. In the case of the Democrats, some would argue that it means a more left-leaning electorate, though history tells us that may not be the case. Each presidential primary season develops its own character — Bill Clinton won by appealing to the party’s center, Al Gore by making the case that it was his turn, and John Kerry by pointing to his military credentials at a time when the Democrats were being accused of being soft on terrorism. Barack Obama flipped the script, running on his opposition to the Iraq War, which differentiated him from Hillary Clinton, by preaching a centrist call for civility and bipartisan cooperation, and making the case that he was something fresh and new.

Obama was far from a leftist — Clinton’s health care plan was more ambitious, John Edwards offered a more left-populist economic vision, and Dennis Kucinich was the peace candidate.

Obama, however, offered a synthesis of all of these approaches, and in the end beat Hillary Clinton, who entered the primary as the odds-on favorite if not the anointed choice.

The 2016 race has been called divisive, which is true, but I would argue that the divisiveness was created by a divided party unsure how to move on from Obama and how to address the lingering fallout from the 2007-2009 economic meltdown. The broader economic indicators were in better shape after eight years of Obama, but the underlying issues — economic and racial inequality, fraying rural communities, and racial resentment — meant that the 2016 race was going to be about change.

Sanders’ challenge to Clinton focused on these issues and should have offered Democrats a preview of what the general election would look like against a right-wing populist like Trump. The anxiety that led a large number of Democrats to back Sanders over an establishment candidate like Clinton was very real, and that anxiety combined with the underlying racism and resentment to give Trump just enough support to eke out an Electoral College victory.

We were all surprised when he won, but perhaps we shouldn’t have been — had we taken seriously what primary voters were saying.

2) to vet candidates

There are 12-18 candidates seeking or likely to seek the Democratic nomination in 2020. They include a former vice president, several senators, congress members and governors, a mayor, former mayor who served as housing secretary, and a business man. They hail from all areas of the country, are racially and ethnically diverse, are of both genders and include at least one member of the LGBTQ+ community.

They also occupy a rather wide berth on the political continuum — from centrist establishment candidates like Joe Biden and Beto O’Rourke to FDR liberals like Elizabeth Warren and the Democratic Socialist Sanders.

Many are unknown to voters at this point and others exist in a mythical realm, which is why it is important that we scrutinize the candidates, asking uncomfortable questions and challenging them on their positions.

Where does Kamala Harris stand on justice reform issues and how does she square her current stance with her actions as California attorney general? How does the working class Biden of myth account for his long-time support for the credit card industry, and how does he explain his growth from a vocal critic of many civil rights efforts to what people generally consider a decent record on these issues?

Every candidate has baggage and it does not help those candidates to hide the baggage in a closet and hope for the best. If they are not asked to defend/explain their baggage now, they will have to do so later when there will be less time and they will have less control over the way the message is presented.

This criticism should not be seen as an attack, but as part of a broader discussion that winnows out the candidates who are least likely to succeed in November 2020, who are strong on the issues, offer a focused explanation of why they are running, and can present a coherent narrative of growth that can connect with voters.

Democrats will not beat Trump if they can’t take a punch themselves.

Hank Kalet is a poet and journalist in New Jersey. Email, hankkalet@gmail.co; Twitter, @newspoet41 and @kaletjournalism; Facebook, facebook.com/hank.kalet; Instagram, @kaletwrites; Patreon. https://www.patreon.com/Newspoet41; tumblr, http://hankkalet.tumblr.com/.

From The Progressive Populist, May 1, 2019

Populist.com