Democratic litmus test

Politico: "'You don't just get to just say that you're progressive.'  The left moves to defend its brand."

It is because the left has a policy litmus test that the actual litmus test is biography and style, not policy.

I am watching John Hickenlooper on CNN as I type. He is one of the twenty Democrats looking at 2020. He says he will "probably" run. He is a Mountain State Governor, and may not be progressive enough on the policy litmus tests.

The 2020 campaign is happening now because it needs to happen now. Politico has an article today listing the 20-some likely candidates for president. Unless the potential candidate is a billionaire or celebrity already, he or she needs to be acting now. To be credible in Iowa and New Hampshire a candidate needs to have a campaign up and running. That means staff: schedulers, communications directors, field staff, and therefore the money to pay for this. Candidates cannot raise money unless it looks like they are a candidate, i.e. with early money, staff, etc. So the timetable backs up to now. Or last year.

Politico: litmus test

Politico observes the problem that was warned about in yesterday's post by my two college classmates who quietly hoped Elizabeth Warren would not run: the fights over distinctions many voters will consider small or incomprehensible, and which, in any case, cannot get passed in this Congress, Senate, or be signed by this president. To Democratic activists, the distinctions are not small. "Single payer" health care is not the same thing as "Medicare for all." "Health care" is not the same thing as "health care access". Activists can be motivated to decide that one candidate is good and the other a sell-out. 

The seeds of deep fracture are evident. 

Representatives of solidly liberal districts see a Democratic majority in the House as a sign that there is an opportunity for a dramatic move to the left. Meanwhile, the robust Democratic majority came because marginal districts voted Democratic, barely. Moderate, centrist Democrats created the majority. They got elected in part because they were NOT part of that progressive left.

John Hickenlooper

An ongoing message of this blog is that biography and appearance constitute a big part of the candidate message. Beto's "message" includes the fact that he appears young and energetic. Sanders' message includes the fact that is that he is a rumpled man with unkempt hair, thus demonstrating that he isn't beholden to Wall Street establishment norms. Warren's message includes the fact 
that she is female, smart, and articulate. Someone will 
emerge out of the chaotic winnowing that will take place over 
the next six months, a winnowing that will happen because 
certain policies and personalities fail to get political traction. 
People need to lose out so that someone can win.

A second ongoing message is that this biographical and personality message will be the lubricant that will cause the political divisions not to matter. Someone will excite and therefore be able to lead a coalition. People will decide the candidate has the "right stuff."

"Ralph," a southern Oregon reader, sent this blog a comment that gives a first person insight into how one voter looks at personality and biography:

"Not any of the present possibles. Bernie and Biden too old. The women not ballsy enough. We need a Margaret Thatcher (not politically), but tough loud assertive like her. If it's a man, then nothing ethnic. White with a cowboy hat and a pickup truck and blond wifey. A hunter,--someone who owns cows and horses. An ex GI. It would be best if he is pro union just like his Daddy. And he doesn’t smile very much. Plain speaker with some bucks but not a millionaire. The only people he scares are Big Money Republicans and fat corporations because he knows how they are ripping off the worker and small farmer."

Jon Tester

My sense is that Ralph is describing no one candidate, but Jon Tester, Montana Senator, or John Hickenlooper, who is leaving office as Colorado governor are the closest approximations. 

Other readers will disagree on the correct biography and style. They will have other people in mind, and some will have very clear policy demands.  My point in quoting Ralph is to demonstrate that what is important to having credibility is a biography and style, not a specific point of policy. 

It is the authenticity of biography that makes Elizabeth Warren's gaffe regarding Native American heritage such a problem for her. It messes up what would otherwise have been a good, clean log-cabin story, the rise from modest Oklahoma roots to the pinnacle of academic success as a law professor at Harvard.