Who gets to be on stage in the debates? Who is first tier? Who deserves media attention?
The Democratic debates are already complicated and contentious, and it puts identity politics back into the center of the Democratic message.
 |
| Starting line, Rome Marathon |
The fastest runner is the one who gets to the finish line first. The American system of voting is called "first past the post," which means whoever gets the most votes wins. In a footrace this usually seems reasonable.
In politics, in a two candidate race, it also seems fair. One person gets the majority.
The problem comes up when there are multiple candidates. When someone wins a plurality but not a majority, there is no clarity on who the majority of people actually favor. Maybe the candidates split the majority and an unpopular candidate won.
The problem comes up when there are multiple candidates. When someone wins a plurality but not a majority, there is no clarity on who the majority of people actually favor. Maybe the candidates split the majority and an unpopular candidate won.
Moreover, a footrace only seems fair if all the runners start from the same distance from the finish line. But what if some runners--or candidates--have a disadvantage at the line-up, which actually happens in a large field of runners.
Those are the kinds of problems facing Democrats.
We start with the reality that Democrats are exquisitely sensitive to bias in the nominating process, based on the 2016 experience. There will be multiple credible candidates, and candidates and their partisans will be looking for a thumb on the scale.
Entering the presidential race is easy. To be an official candidate for president in New Hampshire one must sign an affidavit stating that one is a member of the party for which they are filing and pay $1,000 in cash or a cashier's check. That's it.
I photographed Sam Sloan doing exactly that on the same time that Bernie Sanders filed. Sanders and Sloan were legally on the same footing--both were Democratic candidates. Sanders wanted to raised taxes on billionaires; Sloan wanted schools to teach chess to improve the minds of students. Some people would define both candidates as "kooks," and Sanders the more dangerous. Others, of course, were thrilled by Sanders, the honest politician speaking truth to power. No one but me noticed Sloan.
In politics the criteria for deciding who is legitimate--separating Sanders from Sloan--is essential, but it is both subjective and suspect.
Intuitively we "know" Sanders was a legitimate contender and Sloan was not. Sanders drew crowds, Sloan did not. Sanders had name recognition. Sloan did not. Polls showed Sanders would win. No one bothered to poll Sloan. That all means something.
But there is a chicken and egg problem, fully exposed by Trump. He entered the race as a TV celebrity. Republican candidates complained that the only questions the media asked them were what they thought about Trump. That amplified Trump's visibility and credibility as a candidate.
After 2016, polls to determine who is on the debate stage will be more suspect than ever. In 2016 the GOP candidates put into the "also-ran" second tier debate group complained the polling was all about name recognition, not real stature and credibility as a candidate. Lindsay Graham and Rick Santorum were, at least, white men who had had plenty of access to the media's Sunday TV shows. They complained, but no one cared. They were "losers." Trump mocked them.
In 2020 Democrats will have a complication: gender and racial prejudice. No Democrat had better mock anyone.
Democrats are highly sensitive to identity and prejudice.
Democratic political orthodoxy fully acknowledges the power of insidious, endemic, silent prejudice in the culture at every level, including within the elite establishment gatekeepers of the party, the media, the polling companies, the pundits, and academics. Since Democrats think bias is inescapable, they look for it. They are sure to find it in how the media covers this race and how the DNC handles the debates.
For example, if Tulsi Gabbard is defined as a "second tier" candidate for the purpose of debates, while Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren are considered "first tier frontrunners" some will question if this an artifact of racial, gender and religious bias. Does she not "seem plausible" because elite expert gatekeepers at the DNC have an expectation that real and legitimate candidates for president don't "look like her?" The media now describes her as a long shot. Is she considered such because she was defined as one from the beginning and is covered less closely by the media, or is she covered less closely because, after all, hardly anyone knows her or thinks she can win? Or because she is female? Or dark skinned? Or Hindu? Or a Bernie supporter?
Kamala Harris identifies as black and female; Cory Booker is a black male; Tulsi Gabbard is a Pacific Islander and Hindu; Elizabeth Warren is a white woman; Bernie Sanders is a Jewish male; Joe Biden is a straight white male--but old; Julian Castro is Latino. It goes on.
Every candidate has a claim.
The media cannot possibly cover everyone equally, or enough. There were six to ten TV cameras and crews at every presidential event I attended in five states in 2016. But there is only so much air time and public interest and there may be a dozen or more Democratic candidates.
Republicans would have an easier time with this. Many deny prejudice exists.They say it ended in 1865. Get over it. The Republican position is that acknowledging prejudice does more harm than ignoring it, so minimize or deny it.
But for Democrats, a contentious mess is shaping up. No white media company or polling company or the DNC will have the legitimacy or standing to tell the world that anyone is less than first tier.
The problem for Democrats is that it will put the fairness of their party and its nominating process back into contention, and it will put identity grievance back into the center of Democratic messaging. That's a lose-lose situation.
Entering the presidential race is easy. To be an official candidate for president in New Hampshire one must sign an affidavit stating that one is a member of the party for which they are filing and pay $1,000 in cash or a cashier's check. That's it.
I photographed Sam Sloan doing exactly that on the same time that Bernie Sanders filed. Sanders and Sloan were legally on the same footing--both were Democratic candidates. Sanders wanted to raised taxes on billionaires; Sloan wanted schools to teach chess to improve the minds of students. Some people would define both candidates as "kooks," and Sanders the more dangerous. Others, of course, were thrilled by Sanders, the honest politician speaking truth to power. No one but me noticed Sloan.
 |
| Sam Sloan: candidate for President |
Intuitively we "know" Sanders was a legitimate contender and Sloan was not. Sanders drew crowds, Sloan did not. Sanders had name recognition. Sloan did not. Polls showed Sanders would win. No one bothered to poll Sloan. That all means something.
But there is a chicken and egg problem, fully exposed by Trump. He entered the race as a TV celebrity. Republican candidates complained that the only questions the media asked them were what they thought about Trump. That amplified Trump's visibility and credibility as a candidate.
After 2016, polls to determine who is on the debate stage will be more suspect than ever. In 2016 the GOP candidates put into the "also-ran" second tier debate group complained the polling was all about name recognition, not real stature and credibility as a candidate. Lindsay Graham and Rick Santorum were, at least, white men who had had plenty of access to the media's Sunday TV shows. They complained, but no one cared. They were "losers." Trump mocked them.
In 2020 Democrats will have a complication: gender and racial prejudice. No Democrat had better mock anyone.
Democrats are highly sensitive to identity and prejudice.
Democratic political orthodoxy fully acknowledges the power of insidious, endemic, silent prejudice in the culture at every level, including within the elite establishment gatekeepers of the party, the media, the polling companies, the pundits, and academics. Since Democrats think bias is inescapable, they look for it. They are sure to find it in how the media covers this race and how the DNC handles the debates.
For example, if Tulsi Gabbard is defined as a "second tier" candidate for the purpose of debates, while Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren are considered "first tier frontrunners" some will question if this an artifact of racial, gender and religious bias. Does she not "seem plausible" because elite expert gatekeepers at the DNC have an expectation that real and legitimate candidates for president don't "look like her?" The media now describes her as a long shot. Is she considered such because she was defined as one from the beginning and is covered less closely by the media, or is she covered less closely because, after all, hardly anyone knows her or thinks she can win? Or because she is female? Or dark skinned? Or Hindu? Or a Bernie supporter?
Kamala Harris identifies as black and female; Cory Booker is a black male; Tulsi Gabbard is a Pacific Islander and Hindu; Elizabeth Warren is a white woman; Bernie Sanders is a Jewish male; Joe Biden is a straight white male--but old; Julian Castro is Latino. It goes on.
Every candidate has a claim.
The media cannot possibly cover everyone equally, or enough. There were six to ten TV cameras and crews at every presidential event I attended in five states in 2016. But there is only so much air time and public interest and there may be a dozen or more Democratic candidates.
 |
| The problem with abundance |
But for Democrats, a contentious mess is shaping up. No white media company or polling company or the DNC will have the legitimacy or standing to tell the world that anyone is less than first tier.
The problem for Democrats is that it will put the fairness of their party and its nominating process back into contention, and it will put identity grievance back into the center of Democratic messaging. That's a lose-lose situation.
1 comment:
Interesting, but I don't really think it's a thing. Here's why:
My thinking is that Democrats have learned that the struggle towards a Socialist Democracy requires a vigilant and active effort to promote Progressive issues and maintain a sense of urgency as we prepare for 2020. It's an "all hands on deck" state of affairs. Most of the politicians you mention are not really serious contenders (polling will reveal this), but they do represent the various elements of a coalition that will come together behind the most unifying candidate and, one hopes, soon. The Regressive term "identity politics" was coined to create the illusion of warring factions in the Progressive movement that in fact do not exist in reality. Yes, aspirants will joust but well within the boundaries of the emerging ideology of social and economic justice, climate change, healthcare, etc.
It's really a two person race at the moment; Senators Warren and Sanders, with Warren more likely to appeal to independents.
This article outlines why Sen. Sanders moment has passed, without even mentioning the growing unease with his cult of personality.
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/six-reasons-bernie-sanders-has-lost-his-2016-mojo.html
If, as is rumored, Sen. Sanders announces it will become a contest between them that will require Sen. Warren to systematically refute his more unrealistic ideas and sadly, expose his self-seeking agenda, including accountability for his behavior in the 2016 election. The Sanders cult is as dangerous to the Republic as Trump's due to their equally nihilistic tendencies.
Post a Comment