LOOKING AT 2020 BEYOND CANDIDATES: WHAT’S REALLY AT STAKE

A clear distinction has emerged among the three of us in terms of our preferences in the race for the 2020 Democratic

presidential         nomination. We’ve realized the reasons for those differences go beyond merely liking one candidate’s health plan over another’s. What each of us wants in a 2020 Democratic standard bearer reflects our view of where this country should go politically and culturally in the next few years and what the 2020 election stands for as a marker in our politics. Here we offer a first look at that dichotomy (or perhaps, in our case, a trichotomy). We recognize explaining all this may require more than one 980-word blog post.

Woodson:  A Time for Bold Action

The problems we face require more than snip-around-the-edges incrementalism. We need reform of our immigration laws – specifically a change to our family separation policy; a health care system that makes health care affordable to all. The Trump tax cuts for

multi-millionaires must be rolled back. Those revenues should be devoted to development of our roads, bridges, and schools. Our children should have an opportunity for a vocational or college education, similar to how all Americans are now afforded a public primary and secondary education. The criminal justice system  should

be reformed so that charges and sentences are not influenced by the defendant’s ethnicity or economic status.

In convincing some Caucasian Americans their enemies are undeserving black and brown people, President Trump lowered the taxes of the rich and further divided the nation on the basis of race, national origin, and social strata. It is time to address the concerns of all Americans.  These objectives are not inconsistent with Rob’s desires for the nation. 

The interests to which I refer should not wait. Incrementalism has historically meant that the

needs of people of color - namely African Americans - must wait. Roosevelt’s New Deal was good for most white Americans, but in too many instances came at the expense of blacks. Roosevelt even refused to support an anti-lynching bill because he wanted southern white congressman to sup-

port his New Deal legislation. It is time to look out for all our citizens. The country’s leadership must be bold and “walk and chew gum at the same time”.  I do not agree with Rob’s notion that moving forward with a progressive agenda will make the fight for President’s Obama Affordable Care Act look like a “sixth-grade playgroud skirmis". The grade playground skirmish”. The legislation to make these changes has already been passed in the House of Representatives. It just needs to be passed in the Senate and signed by the President. In any case some goals are worth the skirmishes.  

Rob: Get Back to Normal First

While I share most (not all) of Woodson’s policy objectives, I believe the next president has a more pressing obligation. She or he must reinstate normalcy after the disaster of the Trump presidency. I see three things as essential: (1) restore respect for the rule of law; (2) operate the federal government without scandal and daily turmoil; and (3) repair our alliances around the world, thereby protecting our national security in a way consistent with our values and those of our allies.

Woodson’s agenda comes with two significant risks. First, a president seeking enactment of many of these proposals will embroil the nation in bitter partisan wrangling that will make the conflict over President Obama’s effort at passing the Affordable Care Act seem like a sixth-grade playground skirmish. Second, the political

backlash will likely consume that president and make him or her a one termer. Keeping a Democrat in the White House for at least eight years so we can flip the Supreme Court is much too important to sacrifice for the possibility of pipe dream policy proposals that will likely never become law.  For the most part, I’m with my brother Walker on where he wants to go, but first things first.   

Henry: Oh, I See What you’re Saying

Rob likes telling the story of one his first-year law professors who had the admirable quality of patiently listening to mostly incorrect answers given by students called on in class by gently telling them, “Oh, I see what you’re saying.” Professor Smith then steered the class to the right answer by picking out a few things the erring student said and weaving the correct answer into his response. I feel that’s the appropriate reaction to my colleagues. I fear they’re both right and both wrong and I should guide them both to a better place.

I wonder if where Woodson thinks America should go now and where Rob wants to go are that different. Will, fifty years from now,

America look that different under one vision than the other? Rob acknowledges he shares most of Woodson’s policy prescriptions (as do I). He just thinks we have more pressing problems now, that the house is burning down and putting out the fire takes precedence over building a new house.  But, he admits, the new house he’d build looks much like the house Woodson thinks we should start on now. 

 

The danger in Woodson’s do-it-now approach

lies in the risks Rob identifies – turmoil and potential backlash. The danger in Rob’s incrementalism lies in the injustice of putting off things that keep get-

ting put off.  As Martin Luther King, Jr told white ministers in his Letter from Birmingham Jail, the well-meaning moderate advocating patience often poses the greatest obstacle to justice. Civil rights couldn’t wait and some of the things Woodson thinks we should tackle now shouldn’t wait either.

 

Endless Conversation

We’ve only scratched the surface of this topic. Exploring ideas and differences like this forms the rationale for why we do this each week. Our masthead says “Endless Conversation.” The need for exploring topics like this demonstrates why that’s more than a slogan.         

DEMOCRATIC DEBATE IV: SHOOTING THE ARROWS IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION

The fourth debate of the 2020 Democratic presidential nominating contest looked somewhat like the three that preceded it – candidates behind brightly colored

Democratic Candidates of Dabate Four

PhotoCred: The Daily Dot

lecterns, well known media figures asking the questions, and a live audience made up mostly of Democratic true believers who knew the applause lines. At the end, the pundit class proclaimed several participants as big winners, but said the race wouldn’t change much as a result of the evening’s proceedings on an obscure college campus in Ohio.

Looks deceive sometimes. This debate was very different from the ones that took place earlier in Miami, Detroit, and Houston. The difference lay in who got hunted, which showed how much the race has changed, just in the month since the September debate in Houston.

In the earlier events, former Vice President Joe Biden

served as prey for the other candidates. California Senator Kamala Harris, for example, got a big polling boost (which faded) from taking on Biden about school busing and his record on racial issues during  his long career in the United States Senate. Former Housing Secretary Julian Castro tackled Biden’s immigration record while serving in the Obama administration. Others also took shots at Biden during those first three debates.

All About Warren

Moving up in the polls and becoming a front runner

- maybe THE front runner – comes with a price. Elizabeth Warren paid that price in the fourth debate. When the Massachusetts senator took a narrow lead in some national polls and several polls in early primary states, it became clear she’d receive incoming fire on the debate stage. Her competitors didn’t disappoint.

South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar challenged Warren on her support for Medicare for all. Buttigieg said Warren should support “Medicare for all who want it,” warning of the political danger in forcing millions of Americans off private health insurance plans they like. Klobuchar essentially accused Warren of being untruthful about how she'd pay for her health  care plan when Klobuchar praised Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders for "being honest here"  about "where we're going to send the invoice."  Warren stuck to her guns, not budging on her plan.

Harris went after Warren for refusing to join her demand that Twitter deactivate President Trump’s account for alleged violations of its terms of service guidelines. Other candidates challenged Warren on foreign policy. Former Texas congressman Beto O’Rourke accused Warren of being punitive toward people on whom she wants to impose higher taxes. The hits just kept on coming.

How’d She Hold Up?

Warren had to get used to the attacks. It’s probably not fair to say she was thrown off her game, but her first responses indicated some discomfort in her new role. As the debate went on, however, Warren rebounded, taking the criticism in stride. To her credit, she never attacked her attackers in anything even suggesting a personal rebuke.

Warren will have to get used to being the hunted if she holds her spot in the polls as the race moves toward the first primaries early next year. The criteria for the next debate will likely exclude some of the 12 candidates who appeared on the stage in Ohio. If that’s the case, those remaining must find ways of distinguishing themselves from the three leaders –Warren, Sanders, and Biden. Generally, political candidates don’t knock votes off another candidate without some kind of attack. As long as Warren stays at the front of the pack, she will take hits.

What’s the Long-Term Plan?

Some political observers have suggested Warren’s end game involves a calculated move toward the center if she gets nominated. These observers say, for example, she won’t give all the details of how she plans on paying for her health care plan because she wants “wiggle room” for the general election campaign. Perhaps, this analysis goes, she’ll suggest she’s open to something less than a single payer health care system that gets rid of all private insurance, maybe a public option that builds on the Affordable Care Act. That might keep her from alienating, in particular, union members who’ve bargained for health insurance they’d hate giving up.

In post-debate spin room interviews Warren, predictably, denied having a “wiggle room” strategy. She contended she’s espousing sincerely held positions she believes serve the nation’s best interests. She can’t say anything else right now, of course, but if she gets nominated, plenty of the powers that be in the Democratic party will start pulling at her about her boldest (some would say radical) proposals. She and her team will have some hard choices if she prevails in the nomination fight and takes the stage next summer in Milwaukee as the party’s standard bearer.

Voting hasn’t even started yet, so we’d get way ahead of ourselves in anointing Warren now as the likely nominee. The flavor of the latest debate proved, however, her rivals take the possibility seriously. In going after her they showed they believe they needed to nip the possibility in the bud. It’s game on!