One big problem for the Democrats is that their current leadership is competent but not inspiring. They will flail and look divided until a unified message emerges.
Democrats need a different kind of party leader to emerge. A spokesman with a counter message to Trump.
 |
| Colbert, spoofing Trump |
I am not particularly afraid of the political appeal of Mike Pence. Look at him. White hair. Respectful. Safe. He looks like a church deacon. He has appeal among establishment Republicans as "Plan B" to Trump in case Trump does something utterly disqualifying, e.g. something even worse than being caught on tape saying a celebrity like him can just grab women by the pussy, which apparently is not enough. But Pence does not look to me like the next generation of inspiring leader, and Democrats need not for the next leader among the Democratic versions of Pence, i.e. good solid progressives in the senate
It is time for Democrats to put their attention on the next generation. Sherrod Brown (65), Elizabeth Warren (67), Hillary Clinton (69), Al Franken (65), Chuck Schumer (66) are my age. In Boston last week a young woman offered me her seat on the subway! I am the same age as as those senate leaders.
 |
| CNN's Jake Tapper |
I realize there is a long difference between critic and player, between sportscaster and the person on the field. Comedians and news people describe while politicians advocate. Politicians put themselves--there very selves--out there, which is different from being outside the arena. But Trump (and Ronald Reagan and Carly Fiorina and Michael Bloomberg and Ross Perot all showed us that voters are willing for people to make the shift. The question is whether the person will make the shift from ringside into the arena.
Comedian/Social critic: (Steven Colbert, Tina Fey, Jon Stewart, Eva Longoria, Steven Colbert--here is an example of Colbert spoofing Trump, comedically: Click Here)
Some retired NFL quarterback or player with a reputation for brute toughness (Is there a progressive Mike Ditka?)
Some Division One or pro football or basketball coach (a Pete Carroll type, with progressive politics)
Some articulate billionaire: (Mark Cuban maybe)
Some TV news person: (George Stephanopolis. Andrew Cuomo. Jake Tapper.)
Movie actor/produce, especially one who played heroic characters: (Ben Affleck, Bradley Cooper, Matt Damon, Tom Hanks)
 |
| Tom Hanks, Movie Hero |
The optics of who matches up better against Trump as a spokesman for Truth, Justice, and the America Way matter, and I like the matchup of a progressive business person or celebrity with a reputation for toughness and clarity of message. Trump has revealed the underlying non-verbal spectacle element of presidential politics. Trump understood it and I saw it at first hand most dramatically at the rally in Boca Raton. Giant Flag. The booming music from the movie theme of Air Force One. And Trump, lighting up the sky with his helicopter as it landed at the event.
All hail the great man. He promised the crowd he would win, win, win, win and win so much we would get tired of winning. It was theater. He towered above the crowd. It stirred the soul. Trump will not be stopped by the Mike Pence type people of the world. People want to see Hector fight Achilles.
 |
| Eventually this changes. |
Trump is exciting, but he is not steady, which Hillary noted. The public did not care.
In the interim waiting for the tragic flaw to be his undoing, Democrats need someone to articulate Trump's errors. It may well be that Hector will defeat him in a fair fight, but it won't be necessary. The fight will slow him down, allow gridlock to do its work, and it will torment him and expose the dangers of hubris sooner.
# # # #
If you have time for a podcast, check us out: Thad Guyer, an attorney representing whistleblowers, and I discuss the transition. Sit back and hear us talk about the optics of the transition and how Trump is handling the media. Peter says he is "winning" the little battles where the media objects to his conflicts of interests and the numbers of the Carrier jobs saved. Guyer reviews the new personnel in detail.Click Here for the New Podcast
2 comments:
Will Democrats Chant “Tear Down the Wall” in 2020?
UpClose today asked exactly the right "who" questions on leadership going forward. Here are a few "how" questions for our longshot at getting back into the White House in 2020 or 2024.
(1) Tear down the wall? That likely will be the central political litmus test of whether we retake the White House. It may also be the test of whether Democrats survive as a viable party. The answer seems obvious to me: Chant “tear down the wall” or “stop the wall”, and lose-- again.
(2) How about describing radical Islamic terrorism as “radical Islamic terrorism”. Do you think that will be an issue in 2020? Obviously it will. Do you think Democratic primary contenders will be willing to say it? Either the answer will be yes or— we lose again.
(3) What about one on support for law enforcement? (I’ll spare you “extreme vetting” of Muslims): Will Democrats continue to embrace Black Lives Matter generalized rhetoric that white police are out of control in shooting blacks in the inner-city? Answer: Project as anti law enforcement and we lose again. Second only to the wall in popularity, “we love our police” was a powerful rallying cry for Trump.
(3) Here’s an easier one: Will Democrats be staunchly “anti globalist” in 2020? Again a no-brainer, non-Democrat Bernie proved that. Let’s make it a little harder: Will Democrats campaign on “ending the rip-off of our jobs by Mexico and China”, are Democrats capable of blunt talk like that? Obviously we are quite capable of stunningly offensive talk when we want—we called the opposition “deplorables” and “racists”. Let’s make it real hard: Will Democrats denounce the cheap imported labor component of globalism and decry “open borders”? Answer: Get tagged again as “open borders” and – no White House for us.
Ugly sounding questions, right? Maybe the answers can be euphemized and spruced up a bit, or maybe dodged or double-talked here and there. But these will be the core questions that determine whether we even get to the starting gate in 2020. Or—maybe Jennifer Palmieri, Hillary’s communications director, speaks for us: “I would rather lose than win the way you guys did!” Perfectly legitimate to lose with honor if that’s how you think political power should be granted or denied.
(4) So here’s the ultimate question: Will the Democratic party’s “identify politics” coalition denounce campaigning on “tear down the wall” (not to mention “sanctuary cities)”, calling “radical Islamic terror” by its name, enthusiastically supporting law enforcement, and saying no to globalist “open borders” and cheap immigrant labor that sustains globalism? The answer is undoubtedly yes. Our caucuses are proudly multi-racial, and include whites. And the truth is that our Hispanic caucus, our Black caucus, our immigrant amnesty caucus, our multi-culturist caucus, and our broader political correctness caucus, are unlikely to ever again vigorously support a “centrist” Democrat, i.e., a Bill Clinton, or the old Hillary Clinton, who even as Secretary of State was a confirmed pro-war, pro-globalist, anti-illegal immigration centrist. Centrists will surely emerge in our 2020 primary, and our caucuses will shout them down as racist, sexist, Islamophobic and xenophobic. Only a strong Sanders-like anti-globalist progressive promising free tuition, massive tax cuts, and military isolationism will have any chance of emerging as the nominee from our identity politics. We better get busy with that policy agenda. But if he or she proclaims “tear down the wall” or denounces Trump supporters as racists, he or she will win the blue states, but lose the electoral college.
Job vacancy: “Wanted, skillful politician or political outsider to lead major political party. No experience needed. Anti-hypocrisy policy: Need not apply, no matter how progressive your are, if famous from a family business or tech empire your spouse or kids still want to run.”
I'll have to disagree strongly this time, Peter. Given that the majority of Americans DID vote for competence and experience, that the job DOES require a good deal of preparation and responsibility, we do not need flashy. We need stable and responsible. There clearly is a contingent of Americans who don't value professionalism and competence, but I doubt they are a majority of Democrats. Give me boring and responsible any day. No Erdogans, no Dutertes, no Modos, no Putins.
Post a Comment