Warrior or Civility?

Swords or a Round Table

Yesterday's post looked at the differences between Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar. 

Athena wisdom; Athena warrior

That post evaluated a scale based on presentation style. The post said that Warren was looking like a political rock star: confident, bold, big gestured, and that Klobuchar was presenting like a legislator: deliberate, steady, low drama.

There is, of course, a second scale on which to measure them, one of left and less-left, progressive vs. moderate.

There is a third scale: Battle vs engagement. It is the subject of a Guest Post by Tony Farrell, a college classmate, and an expert on branding and strategic positioning, with a long career managing marketing for products sold by The Sharper Image, the Gap, and The Nature Company. He represented Trump Steaks.

Tony Farrell lives among the comfortable 1% in the San Francisco Bay Area, a Country Club environment of educated people who have capacity to fund the campaigns that the 99% observe, and therefore they have outsize influence on American politics. Readers of this blog who object to the power and influence of special interest politics would do well to understand what motivates the people who play key roles in that arena.  

Guest Post by Tony Farrell

Battle or engagement?

Thinking about 2020 (even though, as a Californian, I’ve nothing to contribute, as there is no real contest for president here), it seems Democratic voters are looking for either a “warrior” to battle and conquer Trump (best example: Warren the Warrior; but Bernie, too); or they seek a candidate who models the behavior polls indicate most people would like to see, which is a return to civility and reasonable engagement, breaking gridlock and making progress (Biden, Bullock and Buttigieg and more?).

Every Trump supporter I know has two degrees, with at least one from an Ivy institution; so, they’re not typical (or numerous). But their reasons for voting Trump are the same as many of their less-educated brethren: They hated Hillary and all her attendant political correctness. There are many who claim they voted Obama twice, and then Trump. 

These prospective 2020 swing voters would not be persuaded by an anti-Trump “warrior” message because that’s already proven to be unconvincing, in 2016. (The base, obviously, is immutable, as are Trump’s arch-critics.) So, the voters who can be turned back from Trump to the Democratic side will have to be persuaded by someone who expresses empathy for their plight and a promise to hear them; and one way to demonstrate that is to signal a clear willingness to compromise, work with opponents, and “get things done.”

Model of modeling

I hesitate to say this but I’ll evoke the movie “Miracle On 34^th Street” (1947), a charming Christmas fantasy. When Macy’s (real) Santa Claus sends customers to Gimbels for gifts not found at Macy’s, Gimbels is forced to respond in kind, because Macy's earned so much goodwill for doing the right thing. Santa modeled the desired behavior, demonstrating Christian values, plus mutual respect for each store and all customers. I guess my fantasy is that a serious Democratic candidate will model the desired behavior—even praising rivals for help in achieving good outcomes (Veterans Affairs; federal incarceration; there are examples even when it seems there are none). Swing voters once distracted by Trump's fake promises may return to the candidate whose promises address their concerns, but are grounded in reality and have a prospect of succeeding.

Additional Note by Peter Sage:  

This is one of several guest posts by Tony Farrell. Readers have asked me who is this man I introduce as a prosperous Bay Area political observer. In this political environment I am simultaneously qualifying him as an anthropologist doing field work, while inserting him into a group vilified by both left and right populism. 

From Tony Farrell:  "Summer of 1970, I worked on a SeaLand container ship out of Baltimore, heading to Europe and the Caribbean; union work, courtesy of my father, who was a shipping executive. I was "Wiper #2" of two wipers; the lowest of the low. My job was to wipe stuff down in the engine room, which, during the summer, was well over a hundred degrees and often pitching quite violently. Every other week, I got "head" duty, which was great because the bathrooms were air conditioned; all is relative; cleaning toilets as luxury! In the engine room, I knew I was going to bonk my head really hard at least twice, usually three times a day. (Perhaps that accounts for some addled-ness late in life.) "

I vividly remember being angry most of the time; one source of anger was feeling that people did not know or appreciate what I was going through; I felt invisible and I resented it. It was such hard work; so hot; bonking my head; getting woke up in the middle of the night to "blow tubes" (which required me squeezing behind a boiler to pull chains. Wore through several pairs of work gloves doing that). I told myself to not forget that anger and resentment, and that has helped me to always bear sympathy and empathy for people who do hard physical labor, many for not much reward. And to be a good boss.

Also, now as never before, I understand the fear physical laborers must feel as their aging bodies weaken and they can see the end of their productive lives well before the end of their living."