THE ROBERT MUELLER SHOW: AND WE ARE NOT SAVED

We’ve had two inspirational American presidents during our lifetimes - John F. Kennedy and Barack Obama. In different contexts, they requested sacrifice. Kennedy, as an organizing principle for his New Frontier, suggested Americans ask what they could do for their country when juxtaposed with asking what the country could do for them. Obama, in seeking passage of the Affordable Care Act, implicitly asked that some Democratic House members sacrifice their seats so millions could have health insurance. The bill passed, and Republicans won the House in 2010.

After Robert Mueller’s appearance before two House committees proved the  Special Counsel couldn’t magically make beginning an impeachment inquiry on President Trump easy, we ask what sacrifice Democratic politicians will make in the cause of saving our democracy. Mueller didn’t “move the needle” in favor of impeachment, leaving in place the political reasons for not proceeding. We think, however, impeachment should remain an option and if some Democratic office-holders lose their seats in that process, so be it.  America has been attacked. We’re already at war. War comes with casualties.

Mueller’s Testimony

We need say little about Mueller’s July 24 testimony. For most of the day, he looked older than his 74 years, fumbling for references in his report and having trouble hearing the questions. He perked up in the afternoon session before the Intelligence Committee, freed from the constraints of obstruction of justice law and anxiously venting his concerns about Russian interference in the 2016 election and the likelihood of a repeat.

Mueller’s halting delivery and snooze-button demeanor made for less than compelling television, especially as it unfolded. Edited clips looked better, but pundits still gave the exercise a failing grade and even left-leaning commentators pronounced impeachment dead, especially if Mueller’s appearance was to have turbocharged the process.  

Having said all that, the substance of what Mueller told the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees was compelling. Under focused, disciplined questioning by well-prepared Democrats who swore off grandstanding for efficiency and clarity, Mueller laid out what’s in his 400 plus page report that so few Americans have read. Trump’s bad acts became disgustingly obvious for anyone paying attention. Had any other President committed even one of the sins the testimony covered, that President would have been drummed out of office long ago.    

Impeachment and 2020

As the talking heads analyzed impeachment prospects in light of Mueller’s day, one piece of reporting caught our eye. A congressional staffer allegedly said impeachment won’t happen because the 218 votes required in the House aren’t there and won’t be there. Thirty-one House Democrats who represent Trump-leaning districts can’t support it. Voting for impeachment supposedly would sound an electoral death knell for these Representatives.

For this reason, Mueller’s appearance barely moved House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She’s insisted she’d rather see Trump in prison than impeached, believing the best way for ridding the nation of him lies at the 2020 ballot box, then perhaps prosecuting him for his crimes after he leaves office.

We get the politics and we desperately want Trump gone too. But we wonder if Speaker Pelosi has considered:

·      Trump has already invited foreign intervention in the next election, signaling he’d turn our democratic traditions over to foreign dictators.

·      Mueller and American intelligence agencies recognize how serious a problem we have. Mueller wondered if foreign election interference has become “the new normal.” Without impeachment, does that happen?

·      With war already underway, perhaps we don’t have the luxury of worrying about political survival of backbench House members.

·      Can our relatively young democracy stand eight years of Trump and is the risk of that worth taking?

Mutually Exclusive?

We also question another aspect of Pelosi’s political calculation. Her strategy gives America one shot at getting rid of Trump – the 2020 election. Suppose that shot misses? Wouldn’t two chances be better?

An impeachment inquiry and beating Trump in the election aren’t mutually exclusive. The approaches could, in fact, work hand-in-hand in ridding us of him. It’s true the Senate probably won’t remove Trump, but the facts brought out in an impeachment inquiry could significantly aid the 2020 campaign effort.

Information developed in a full-fledged impeachment inquiry might serve as a powerful weapon for the 2020 Democratic ticket. Impeachment could animate and mobilize the Democratic base. Pundits speak often of Trump’s base, but a Democratic base exists and most of it wants Trump impeached. A vigorous impeachment inquiry that explains the already exposed Trump crimes could fire up and turn out the Democratic base, especially in the key Midwestern states Hillary Clinton lost in 2016. Turnout in the 2018 mid-terms, especially in the suburbs where women made the difference for Democrats, suggests the potential of an energized electorate.

So, we return to sacrifice. If the price of ditching Trump

includes an unpopular impeachment vote and loss of a few congressional seats, perhaps that’s a price worth paying. Most people go into politics claiming they do so not for themselves, but for serving the greater good. Maybe we test that claim. We ask America’s finest young women and men for the ultimate sacrifice in war. Perhaps, in this war, we ask office-holders for the ultimate political sacrifice.       

THE BLACK VOTE: NOW AND THEN

All three of us spent time in our earlier years involved with political organizations.  Henry and Rob took jobs working for Arkansas governors, while Woodson, through his community standing as a lawyer, became an important supporter of several Arkansas political figures. Our experiences gave us a front row seat for the evolution of how the political community views the African-American vote. As 2020 approaches, we can report stark differences in how pundits, politicians and the public view the black vote now and in the past.

Essential Voters for Democrats

Every 2020 Democratic presidential candidate knows he or she needs African-American support. Arguably Donald Trump resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue  because of Hillary Clinton’s shortcomings in turning out black voters in 2016. Clinton got 88% of the black vote, but the turnout decreased from 2012 when Barack Obama  won re-election – from 66.6% to 59.6%, the biggest drop in the voting percentage of any ethnic

or racial group since a ten per cent decrease by whites from 1992 to 1996. In her book What Happened, Clinton blamed some of that on voter identification laws and other voter suppression efforts. That might be the reason and it might not, but it happened, with devastating consequences for her presidential bid.

             

The power of African-American voters, especially women, showed up dramatically in 2017 and 2018. In Alabama’s 2017 special U.S. Senate race, Democrat Doug Jones won by 1.7 per cent, almost certainly because of 98% support from black women (63 % of white women voted Republican). In the 2018 mid-terms, a 94% vote by black women propelled the blue wave that resulted in Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives.

The 2016, 2017, and 2018 results make one thing clear: Democrats win with a big black vote and lose without it. So, the 2020 candidates are out there, openly and aggressively seeking black votes.

The 2020 Pitch

Different candidates are doing different things in searching for black support. Some acknowledge African-American,with a common history as descendants of slaves and victims of slavery’s long, racially discriminatory shadow, like women, represent a special interest group with problems requiring government-sponsored solutions. Former Vice President Joe  Biden, the Democratic front runner, hasn’t been policy specific on much yet. He promises he’ll roll out his major initiatives over time; presumably we’ll begin seeing some of them starting in this month’s debates. For now, Biden relies on his eight years as former President Obama’s wingman. The polls suggest that’s working, at least for now.

Other candidates don’t have Biden’s luxury. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who struggled in attracting black support in 2016, now

offers what he calls ‘A Thurgood Marshall Plan for Public Education’ in honor of the Supreme Court justice and civil rights icon. Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren speaks openly and directly about the impact of historical, government-endorsed housing discrimination, particularly its role in the black-white wealth gap. She’s also suggested a special fund aimed at supporting Historically Black Colleges and Universities.

                   

Some candidates know they have catching up that needs

doing among black voters. South Bend Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg must overcome questions about his handling of the dismissal, rehiring, and later demotion of black police chief Darryl Boykins. Buttigieg admits he didn’t appreciate the anguish blacks felt about allegedly racist tape recordings at issue in the underlying controversy over the police chief. Some pundits see lack of support among blacks as a major obstacle preventing Mayor Pete from moving into the top candidate tier.                        

My How Things Have Changed

It wasn’t always this way. When Henry, right out of college in 1967, began working for newly elected Arkansas Governor Winthrop Rockefeller, the idea of openly and explicitly courting the black vote was new. That hadn’t been done in Arkansas (or many other southern states) before and it was one reason Henry returned home rather than head for one of his many options elsewhere as a Yale graduate. 

Mobilizing the black vote in an organized way wasn’t on the radar of many mainstream political candidates in either party. Lawrence O’Donnell, in his marvelous book about the 1968 presidential campaign, Playing With Fire: The 1968 Election and the Transformation of American Politics, covers Robert Kennedy’s appeal to black voters, but spends zero time on the real racial dynamics of the race or the role the black vote played in the eventual outcome of an election that made Richard Nixon President.

By the time Rob and Woodson got involved in Bill Clinton’s Arkansas gubernatorial campaigns in the 1970s and 80s, awareness of the importance of the black vote for Democrats had increased. Clinton maintained numerous friendships with prominent African-Americans and always got the lion’s share of the black vote in his races. There remained, however, a concern cultivating the black vote could result in white backlash. Managing outreach to the African- American community became important, as was doing it in a way white voters didn’t find threating. Operatives treaded lightly, making sure that effort remained subtle and generalized. Promoting education, for example, substituted for discussing issues with more overt racial implications, like housing and employment discrimination. Using the word “all” became another subtle way of telling blacks they too were included.  

Politicians search for black votes out in the open now. We see that as a good thing and long overdue.