REPUBLICANS V. DEMOCRATS: A MATTER OF CELEBRITY

 

Both major political parties are lining up candidates

for next year’s elections. Anyone who made a political contribution during 2020 has probably been inundated with fundraising letters, e-mails, and text messages from 2022 campaigns.  We see a defining difference between the kinds of candidates emerging for Republicans and Democrats. Republicans very often present celebrities.

Democrats more often offer independent-minded candidates with roots in social and community movements. We find the difference fascinating.

Many states have spring filing deadlines and potential candidates continue making decisions about whether they’ll seek office. But, fundraising and campaign infrastructure require time. The clock is ticking, especially for high profile statewide races.

The Tuberville Model

Tommy Tuberville enjoyed a successful career as a college football coach, including at Auburn. Now

thanks to the celebrity that went along with that, Alabama’s inherent red hue, and Tuberville’s allegiance to Donald Trump, he’s a United States Senator. Tuberville brought no political or governing experience to his 2020 race against Democratic incumbent Doug Jones.  He campaigned carefully and said little about any issue. Tuberville’s case rested on the fact he’s a Republican (and, therefore, not a Democrat), he enjoyed Trump’s support, and name recognition from coaching. We aren’t saying he wasn’t qualified, but he never said much about what his qualifications were.  He spoke in generalities,

espousing well-worn right wing talking points. His record to date reflects little except following directions from Trump and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.      

That strategy – sports-based celebrity, support of

and from Trump, and keeping quiet beyond platitudes – rests at the heart of legendary running back Herschel’s Walker’s bid for the U.S. Senate in Georgia. Walker hopes he can unseat Democrat

Raphael Warnock, the Baptist minister who won a runoff in January for the unexpired term of retired Republican Johnny Isakson.

Walker has two potential Republican primary opponents, but he’s a strong favorite to win the GOP nomination thanks to his celebrity and his relationship with Trump. Before his time in the National Football League, Walker played for the New Jersey Generals of the United States Football League, a team Trump owned. Relying on their USFL relationship, at the 2020 Republican convention Walker vigorously rejected the idea Trump is a racist.  

Like Tuberville, Walker presents no governing or political experience. He also carries quite a bit of baggage, including allegations of violence toward women, some of which he admitted in his memoir. That makes some Republicans nervous, but most political operatives believe the nomination is his to lose. Also like Tuberville,  he’s keeping a low

profile, dodging interview requests except from friendly outlets like Fox News. Assuming Walker wins the primary, smoking him out likely will become Warnock’s first task in an expensive, high stakes race.

 

Fame Via Media

People who’ve earned fame through media have become another source of Republican candidates. Take J.D. Vance, author of the  acclaimed Hillbilly

Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis. The book spent good parts of 2016 and 2017 on the New York Times best seller list. It made Vance, a former Marine turned Yale Law School graduate, wealthy and famous.  Now he’s seeking the U.S. Senate seat held by retiring Republican Rob Portman.

 

Vance caused a stir in 2016 by slamming Trump as “reprehensible” and saying his policy proposals, “such as they are range from immoral to absurd.” Now faced with the GOP primary electorate in Ohio, Vance has gotten religion. He says Trump was a good president and he regrets the nasty things he said about him.  Having repented, Vance’s celebrity helps make him the favorite in some quarters for the Republican senate nomination.  His political career now represents just another case of elevating expediency over principle.

Oh, and we can’t forget another recent candidate who made his name through the media.  Larry Elder got more votes than any of the other would-be replacements for California Governor Gavin Newsome in the failed September recall election. Elder spent over 25 years as a radio talk show host before seeking the California governor’s chair. His failure hasn’t dissuaded celebrity GOP candidates long on name identity and short on political experience as the Walker and Vance bids attest.

A Different Way for Democrats

The likely contenders for Democratic nominations for U.S. Senate in states like Pennsylvania and

Ohio are men and women with political experience. In Pennsylvania, Lt. Governor John Fetterman and Congressman Conor Lamb lead the way. In Ohio, Congressman and former presidential

candidate Tim Ryan and one-time  Consumer Protection Bureau adviser Morgan Harper probably have the inside track, though others might emerge.

Beyond that, intriguing Democratic newcomers elsewhere spring from social movements aimed at

promoting change. One of the most impactful freshman members of Congress has been Missouri Representative Cori Bush. A registered nurse and minister, she’s led the fight against COVID-related evictions, even sleeping on the U.S. Capitol steps to make her

point. Georgia Representative Lucy McBath ran for Congress so she could

work on gun safety following the shooting death of her son by a man angry about loud music. Transportation Secretary

Pete Buttigeg ran for president because he wanted to be president, but also so he could show that an openly gay man could seek the nation’s highest office.

The motivations and styles of figures like Bush, McBath, and Buttigeg seem much different than the celebrity-based campaigns of the Walkers and Elders of the world. These more independent minded candidates have bucked their own party, not just followed it. Their approach seems more likely to discourage the rush toward autocracy Trump and Republicans now seem hell bent on promoting. 

                                            

FAREWELL TO IOWA?

This week’s Iowa caucuses may well have been the last that lead off presidential voting,

at least in the Democratic Party. Loud objections to their first-contest-in-the-nation status have been out there for a long time. This year’s vote counting debacle may push them off the cliff. We see good reason for such a demise, but offer one caution we’ll get to shortly. History reminds of the need for being careful what you ask for sometimes.

We should point out some of the reasons Iowa acquired this position in the first place. New Hampshire has had the first primary spot since 1920. It even has a law mandating it

remain first.  Iowa, craving national political attention, designed its caucus so it’s not really a primary – no secret ballot, held at night over two or three hours, delegates awarded by a complicated alignment and realignment process. The momentum Jimmy Carter, for example, took

out of Iowa in 1976 encouraged candidates to practically move there in the year before the election. Barack  Obama, as we’ll get to, probably wouldn’t have been president without the gigantic push he got by winning Iowa in 2008. Over time, however, more people have realized how problematic Iowa’s first-in-the-process status is.

The Complaints

In this week’s caucus, entrance polls indicated  over 90 % of those participating were white. For a party that depends on black and brown votes, that’s a problem. Since Iowa often serves the function of winnowing the field and providing momentum for successful candidates, Iowa’s nearly all-white composition seems especially troubling. With similarly white New Hampshire next on the program, Iowa’s unrepresentativeness takes

Source: US Census Population Estimates 2018

on even greater significance. Several cycles ago, Democrats advanced more diverse Nevada and South Carolina on the schedule, but the out-sized influence of Iowa and New Hampshire remain. This year, for example, former Vice President Joe Biden’s poor showing in Iowa – and he may not do better in New Hampshire – leaves his candidacy totally dependent on winning South Carolina on February 29 and doing very well in Nevada a week earlier.

 

In the wake of Iowa this year we heard one national commentator suggest Democrats

start their primary campaign in Michigan. He argued  that state much better represents the kind of electorate a Democrat must attract in running for president. It has big cities with large minority group populations, suburbs, farming communities, and plenty of union members. The idea resonates with us, though we acknowledge we can only guess about how much different the results would have been, if at all.

A second complaint about Iowa has been the  structure of the caucus itself. Not everybody,

the argument goes, can take three hours on a week night for standing in lines and gathering in groups in high school and college gymnasiums. Without a doubt, the process limits participation. 

Finally, voters and political scientists have found the public nature of caucuses unnerving. Revealing one’s electoral choices before friends, neighbors, and strangers doesn’t comport with notions many Americans have about democracy. That characteristic may also depress participation.

We get the complaints about Iowa. They’re all valid. This week’s vote counting debacle may provide the impetus for moving Iowa to a later

spot on the calendar and perhaps entice the Iowa Democratic Party to scrap the caucus format for a primary.  All that is four or eight years down the road, depending on the outcome of this year’s general election and other factors. Right now, we doubt things will stay exactly the same.

The Obama Caveat

One bit of irony remains that no one should forget, especially given the complaints about Iowa’s demographics. The truth is that the boost Barack Obama got from Iowa’s nearly all-white electorate probably gave the United States its first president of color. In late 2007,

Obama & Clinton - the race for presidency 2008

Obama  trailed Hillary Clinton by 16 points in the polls in black-vote-rich South Carolina. Then Obama won a stunning victory in Iowa. He might not have pulled that off in a primary state (he lost to Clinton the next week in New Hampshire’s primary). Iowa’s caucus format puts a premium on field organization, something at which Obama’s campaign excelled. 

Because Obama won Iowa, black voters in South Carolina, previously skeptical of an African American’s chances of winning with white voters, changed their minds and rallied behind Obama.  He won the South Carolina primary by almost 30 points and never looked back. 

 

The demographic coin, therefore, has two sides. One wonders now if history might

repeat itself with former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg. Could his top-of-the-line showing in  Iowa (we won’t have the final results for another week) alleviate skepticism about the viability of an openly gay candidate who publicly expresses his affection for his husband? Time will tell but we can’t say it won’t happen.

Pete Bittgieg and Husband

Lots of reasons exist for getting rid of the Iowa caucuses as the first exercise in the presidential campaign process.  History, and maybe the present, counsel at least a measure of caution.