Jon Stewart for President

Democrats are refiguring what it means to be a Democrat.  It won't be another version of Hillary

There are a flurry of thought-pieces coming out of places where Democrats get their news.  A frequent theme is that Democrats mis-placed their faith in identity politics.   They conclude that Hillary gathered up and named the sub-groups of the disadvantaged (women, blacks, immigrants, Hispanics, disabled, LGBTQ), named them and gave them grievance and voice while simultaneously pointing to their oppressor: the deplorables (white racists, mostly men.)   In this view, it was a war of coalitions and with women voting in big numbers for Hillary it was going to be a wipe-opt victory for Hillary.   Meanwhile Trump was actually helping out by coalescing the Archie Bunker vote, openly going after the uneducated male bigots which helped her in her job of raising the consciousness of the oppressed.

Bill Maher criticizes identity politics

Theoretically, Hillary and Trump were playing the same game, each choosing sides and Hillary had the better team.

The election showed that Hillary's premise was wrong.  Trump was playing the white racism game but he was also playing the "it's the economy, stupid" game.   And he was generally criticizing the game of identity politics even as he was playing it, decrying precious political correctness.   When the results came in it turns out that white women voted for Trump, not Hillary.   They voted their race, not their gender, and they voted their sense of their economic future more than their identity.   More amazing still to pundits, some 30% of Hispanics voted for Trump--more even than had voted for Romney.    If Hispanics voted money rather than identity, voting for Trump for goodness sake, there was no question that Hillary's strategy of identity politics was flawed.

Trump had a clear economic goal that complemented his white-identity coalition:  fix the economy by fixing trade, immigration, and bad deals struck by the entrenched elites.   The plan was vague but the intention was clear: America wins with more manufacturing jobs for regular Americans led by a guy willing to knock heads and change things.

Face Reality Squarely:   She lost

The article illustration from fair.org with the Bill Maher photo summarizes the growing consensus that identity politics forces liberals to deny reason and reality, excusing or ignoring crime and terror when it is done by members of "our team."  People of all ethnicities resent this, even people who are on the team.   Law abiding blacks hate black crime, law abiding Hispanics understand the damage done by Hispanic gangs, and law abiding Muslims hate Muslim terror.   Click Here.

There are other interpretations to what went wrong, so the identity politics mis-step is in competition with other theories.

1. One is the "revenge of the flyover people", and that this was a culture war between the wine and brie elite snobs on the coast versus the beer drinking rural church goers who were tired of being sneered at.   The political correctness part of the Trump message won it for him; how else could a vulgar, un-religious, three-times-married playboy overwhelmingly win the evangelical vote?

2. Another is that it was in fact a campaign mostly about race and there are more whites than blacks.  With all the other talk obscuring things this campaign is really best explained by white backlash against Obama, Black Lives Matter, and the immigration of brown Hispanics and Muslims.  Whites rose up.

3. Another is that it was really just about "same-old" versus change and Hillary was pretty much stuck with being same-old and nearly any change-oriented Republican was fated to win what with the pendulum making its swing back and forth giving each party a shot at the White House.   Eight years in the White House and people want change.  It is simple.

4. Another is that this is the revolt of the "unprotected" versus the "protected", i.e. the swing voters were the people who feel themselves vulnerable to the economic tides because they have jobs in pure competition with others versus people whose jobs are protected by licensure, tenure, education, or some other monopoly force.   Hillary represented the privileged and Trump represented the vulnerable.

5. Another is that this is a revolt by the bi-partisan people against the elites of both parties and that Hillary lost not because of her gender or politics but because she represented the corrupted political class while Trump represented an outsider who would fight the political class of both parties, which meant it was not a partisan victory but a victory of "the people" versus "the whole system."  We have seen this before:  Andrew Jackson defeating John Quincy Adams and the educated elites and their proper cronies.

6. It was simply a failure of a rigged primary system in which Democrats picked the weakest possible candidate, Hillary, against Bernie or Biden, so she lost when any competent Democrat would have won, so the problem wasn't what she said or represented; it was just a really bad candidate.   Don't overthink this: Hillary was even worse than Trump, so Trump won.  

7.  It was about American pride and patriotism and Obama and Hillary represented an America which cooperates and fits into an international system, which makes us a party to foreign interventions and a patsy and pushover in"fair" trade deals.  Meanwhile, Trump represented an America that was looking out for Number One in a struggle where we are a contestant and we should try to win, not get along.  America deserves respect as a winner, not as the den-mother paying out of pocket to keep everyone else from getting into fights.

There are other interpretations.   I could go on and on.

As of late November, 2016, with two weeks of head scratching, a cluster of opinion is forming around the "identity mis-step" thesis:  too much identity politics, not enough focus on the universal concern over jobs and prosperity.

There is good reason to think this is the framework that will inform the future strategy, because it was the one consciously tried by Hillary and it failed so badly.   Hillary overtly appealed to the women's vote.  Millions of women donated $25 and got "The Woman's Card." Hillary appealed to the ethnic and racial minority vote and called them out by name.  It didn't work well enough.  Too many Hispanics voted for Trump.  Had the Hispanic vote been 90-10, Hillary would have won the electoral vote.  Trump was thought a lightning rod for alienating and energizing Hispanics and she still lost, thus discrediting the notion of the Hispanic bloc vote victory route to victory.

So Democrats will look a different direction.

New coalitions are not built by committees and pundits.  They are built by spokesmen--candidates and officeholders who represent the politics of a new coalition.   

Democrats need an attractive, well spoken, experienced but still young Joe Biden, or a Bill Clinton as of 1992.  Remember, Bill Clinton in 1992 was a redneck who got an education and pulled himself up with smarts and hard work and empathy with people who struggle.   Running against George H W Bush Clinton was mocked for having been poor "trailer trash" who had a horn dog past with big haired bimbos, who ate at McDonalds, who had an Arkansas accent when he wanted it.  He was poor, white, and southern.   This frame obliterated the snooty "flyover country" meme and it made him the voice of change, it put him on the right of the pendulum swing of parties, and he was an outsider running against the guy who was part of the political system.   And his focus was the economy, stupid.  Bill Clinton won the primary and the general election.   People like a redneck-makes-good story.

Positioning himself correctly for 2020

Somewhere there is a man or woman age 40 to 60.  He or she already holds a serious office--a governor or senator probably.  Or he or she is a national celebrity with a reputation for discussing policy seriously:  Jon Stewart, Oprah Winfrey, Ben Aflack, Mark Cuban, Eva Longoria, for example.  

That candidate will be on the correct side of the alternative thesis 1-7 above, but will overtly criticize the politics expressed by Hillary.   He or she will say that identity politics is wrong and dangerous.  

The candidate will say it is wrong to categorize by identity but instead by values of good and bad for America.  Law breakers of whatever color are bad.  Brave police and fire fighters whatever color are good when they do their jobs with honor.   He or she will identify with first responders.   People who go to work and support their families are good.  People who cheat the system, either by gaming their taxes or gaming the social safety net are bad.    This will mean calling out violence at BLM protests when they happen but praising peaceful protest.  It will also mean being critical of the areas where Trump will (likely--but it has not happened yet, and might not) profile people on the basis of identity not behavior.   He or she will be someone who has spoken thoughtfully about the media and been its critic for its failure to carry out its function of informing the public.   

That candidate is potentially out there, but I do not yet see that candidate for sure, but I know who is positioning himself for that:  Jon Stewart.   Click Here for the CBS interview
"America is tribal, Stewart said.   We have a multinational country and we need to make that work by treating people as individuals, not as tribal monoliths.  And some Americans, Stewart said, voted for Trump not because they were afraid of Muslims but because they were afraid of their insurance premiums.   Hillary could not say that back before the election and she didn't say it.   Jon Stewart just did.

And yes, there are others.  But he is saying what the successful Democratic will say.  He is saying it with respect for the people who voted for Trump and why they voted for him.