DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE I: A CLEAR CONSENSUS

It’s been a week and a half since the first Democratic debate in

Miami. We’ve had gobs of punditry, our own time for contemplation, and the first polls reflecting that debate’s impact. Surprisingly, little space separates our individual and collective views and those of the pundits. With some minor differences, we agree on three points: (1) California Senator Kamala Harris and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren emerged as winners in the two-night format; (2) former Vice President Joe Biden performed poorly and must improve in the July 30-31 debate in Detroit; and (3) a small group of candidates positioned themselves for future moves, though differences exist about who’s on that list.

The second night attracted a record audience for a Democratic primary debate as 18.1 million people watched on television and another nine million followed on streaming services. The large audience indicates the depth of Democratic desire for a candidate who can defeat President Donald Trump and that Democratic voters continue shopping for that candidate since many in the field of over 20 remain relatively unknown.
 

Harris and Warren

Hardly anyone disputes that Harris offered the most dynamic performance. She clearly planned on attacking Biden for his

Biden/Harris Faceoff

remarks about working with segregationist U.S. Senators years ago and the fact he opposed some forms of busing for school integration. By injecting her own story of being bussed as a student, Harris personalized the issue and further introduced herself to a public still relatively unfamiliar with her. Every poll taken after the debate showed her moving up and one had her grabbing second place behind Biden. 

Harris’s performance also suggested she can stand toe-to-toe with Trump on a debate stage. Her prosecutorial experience, which she flashed in questioning Judge Brett Kavanaugh and U.S. Attorney General William Barr during congressional hearings, should serve her well in a debate-stage fight with the bare-knuckled Trump. 

Warren shone for a different reason. She dominated the early parts of the first night and cruised home, untouched by any other

candidate. Voter interviews confirmed that she impressed with her command of policy and the specificity of her proposals. Warren still must get out her personal story of Oklahoma roots and a hard scrabble existence as a young mother, but she possesses the knowledge and communication skills needed for pushing her progressive message. Trump’s people reportedly fear her discipline and doggedness.

Warren’s rise contrasts with the accelerating fall of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. He dropped in most of the post-debate polls. Warren has found more attractive ways of presenting many of his ideas. There is not room for both of them in that lane.       

Biden

We’re not sure whether the former Vice President performed poorly because of inadequate preparation or age and time have dissipated his skills. Given his pre-debate dust up with Harris and New Jersey Senator Cory Booker over the segregationists, Biden should have anticipated Harris would pounce about that. That he didn’t suggests an apparent lack of foresight. Even so, as Woodson observes, his responses on stage lacked “mental and verbal dexterity.” Maybe, at 76, he’s just lost a step.

Biden, Harris, Booker

Photo Courtesy of CNN

Whatever the reasons for his performance, Biden dropped in every post-debate poll we’ve seen. He lost some of the African-American support that fueled his rise after entering the race. Biden, like all other Democratic candidates, can’t win without black voters. In the next debate, he must show he’s on his game or it’s likely he’ll end up as another early front-runner who couldn’t go the distance.

The Others

Three candidates – former San Antonio Mayor and Housing Secretary Julian Castro, South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg, and Colorado Senator Michael Bennett – led the list of those who may have positioned themselves for a future move. Castro might have single handedly ended the hopes of former Texas Congressman Beto O’Rourke with his grasp of immigration policy. Buttigieg performed well with an honest admission he hasn’t solved racial problems in his city and a heartfelt condemnation of Republican invocations of religion while supporting inhumane immigration policies. Bennett took on Biden for some of his senatorial budget policy actions.

Each, however, has a major flaw. Castro, as a Latino, could suffer an anti-immigrant backlash. Buttigieg raised 24 million dollars in

the last quarter but has little black support and hasn’t yet shown he can get any. Bennett remains mostly unknown outside his home state and must fundraise quickly so he can get on television in the key, early states. He doesn’t have much time.

Some people thought a few others -- New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, and Booker -- belong in the potential breakout category. Others suggest candidates like Marianne Williamson, Erick Swalwell, John Hickenlooper, and John Delaney should save themselves the agony of a drawn out defeat and go home now. Fair enough, but many, including Henry, thought every candidate had at least one good moment. 
  

The first debate served its purposes of better introducing candidates

and initially separating the field, even though somecomplained the participants didn’t put enough emphasis on attacking Trump. Most decided they’d use their time introducing themselves to an America still mostly lacking information about them. As Rob points out, Trump has committed so many sins, plenty of material and time remain for ripping into him.                

THE FOURTH OF JULY, THE FIRST AMENDMENT, AND A GREAT WRITER

Rob pays tribute to our constitution and a national treasure.

This week brings the Fourth of July and its parades, picnics,

and flag waving. For me, the Fourth of July means reflecting on the best of America and how we make it better. Henry, Woodson, and I write a lot in this blog about what would improve America – racial justice, economic equality, political stability. Today, I write about two things already good about America – our First Amendment and a writer it protects named Robert A. Caro.

 

In case you don’t know Caro, I’ll provide an introduction.Robert Caro has written two Pulitzer Prize winning books, won two National Book Awards, and captured three National Book Critics Circle Awards. President Obama awarded him the National Humanities Medal. He began as a newspaper reporter, then turned to writing books with publication in 1974 of The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York. That launched his career, but the four volumes of The Years of Lyndon Johnson made his national reputation.

             

I got a treat when I ran across Working: Researching, Interviewing, Writing, Caro’s new, 207-page memoir of his writing career. I flew through it in two days. It inspired my own writing ambitions and made me realize, as the Fourth of July nears, how fortunate I am in living in a country that allows the work of a Robert Caro. Because that work explores and explains political power, including its excesses and misuses, some countries would quash it and punish anyone doing that work. Through physical intimidation or vexatious, unfounded libel suits, Caro’s volumes would never see the light of day. In America, Robert Caro flourishes. Indeed, I only pray he can finish the fifth and final book in the Johnson series. He is 83 years old. 

The Johnson books

Caro published his first Years of Lyndon Johnson volume, The Path to Power, in 1982, while I attended graduate school at the University of Texas. I worked then for Texas Attorney General (later Governor) Mark White. Many of those around White were old LBJ hands. Naturally, the book keenly interested them, so I ran out and bought a copy. Over the next two years, between graduate papers and starting law school, I struggled through Path’s 848 pages of text and notes. Reading it that way prevented a full appreciation of Caro’s narrative gifts, but I didn’t miss the thoroughness of his research or the comprehensiveness of his effort at understanding Johnson’s native Texas Hill Country.

Path’s dust jacket promised two more volumes (as indicated, we now await number five). When the second, Means of Ascent, arrived in 1990, I found myself immersed in raising children and working at making partner in a big law firm. Though shorter at 482 pages, it went on my shelf, unread.

I didn’t even buy the third volume, Master of the Senate,on its release in 2002, scared off by its 1141 pages of text and notes. Shortly after Caro published Master, because of my work with the Texas Freedom of Information Foundation, I ended up on the mailing list of Democratic kingmaker Bernard Rapoport, a millionaire Waco, Texas businessman known for financing dozens of U.S. Senate campaigns. Rapoport distributed hundreds of copies of Master, including one to me. It too went on my shelf, unread.

Tragedy leads to enlightenment

In 2009, my wife got sick. Ida didn’t survive cancer, but her illness was not for naught. While she underwent chemotherapy and radiation treatment, I sat with her, just being there. Often I read, in a doctor’s office or at home, while she slept or tried reading herself. Hearing about the awards Caro won for his books, I pulled Master off the shelf and read it during that trying year and a half while Ida fought for her life. 

The book enthralled me, especially the part about Johnson, as Senate Majority Leader, spearheading passage of the

Civil Rights Act of 1957 over the opposition of his ally and friend, arch segregationist Richard Russell of Georgia. I also saw Johnson’s other side, in his ruthless destruction of the career of a man named Leland Olds. When their battle ended, Johnson told him, “there’s nothing personal in this …[i]t’s only politics, you know.” 

Reading Master enticed me back to Means of Ascent and its story of how Johnson stole the 1948 Senate race from former Texas Governor Coke Stevenson by 87 votes, leading to Johnson’s nickname, “Landslide Lyndon.” Caro tracked down the man who arranged and reported the fraudulent votes that gave Johnson victory and saved his political career. From that point, I was hooked.

I could barely wait for the 2012 release of The Passage of Power, detailing Johnson’s futile 1960 run for President, his miserable years as Vice President, and his November 22, 1963, ascension to the Presidency. I read the book in Ida’s memory, gratefully celebrating our precious hours together during her final days. 

                                     

Caro and the First Amendment

Because of Robert Caro, we better understand how government works, for good and ill. We see political power’s uses and abuses. Caro said in Working people often ask why writing his books takes so long. Read one and you’ll see. It takes so long because he tells us so much. Thanks to the First Amendment, Caro can tell the whole story. That he can is one of the things for which I am grateful this Fourth of July.