The Real Race for the Democratic Nomination
The need to
replace the Fascist-in-Chief is so desperate that the race for the Democratic
nomination carries a sense of urgency that I cannot recall in any of the
presidential campaigns to which I’ve paid heed, basically back to 1960. There are presently 20 contestants running for
the nomination with the possibility of a few more who could still enter. There
are polls and pundits and prognostications, and a lot of it this far out is
utter nonsense. But what is not nonsense are the unforced errors everyone is
already making: DSA endorsing Bernie Sanders long before it was necessary
precisely to handicap the organization’s potential support for Elizabeth Warren;
Joe Biden announcing on one day and then (a) refusing to apologize to Anita
Hill for enabling a perjurer and abuser onto the Supreme Court, (b) coming down
for the prosecution of marijuana possession and (c) allowing his first
fundraiser to be hosted by a Comcast exec – a 24-hour trifecta of serious blunders;
the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) refusing to work with
any consultants who challenge incumbent Neanderthals, attempting to prevent any
more Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez type candidates from unseating the Joe Crowleys
of this world, making the Democratic party safe for Wall Street and the fossil
fuel industry. All of this bodes ill for a race that is always the incumbent’s
to lose, and an incumbent in this instance only too willing to let foreign
powers put their Hulk-weight thumb down on the scales of opinion and the
electoral college.
It would be
useful here to remember what history teaches.
No
Democratic centrist has won the electoral college since 1996 – 23 years and
counting. It’s true that both Al Gore and Hillary Clinton won the popular vote
but that and $5 will get you a vente Americano at Starbucks with an extra shot
of espresso. Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton in 2008 by running to her left
as the anti-war candidate: one of several tragedies that we can grieve over
about his actual administration was that while he ran as a progressive, he
governed as a centrist. A few cases in point: (1) he ran as the anti-war
candidate to Clinton’s hawkish foreign policy, but then put her in charge of
that policy; (2) he “rescued” the economy from the Bush Recession, but did so
(a) without punishing a single banker beyond Bernie Madoff for the abuses –
crimes – of the previous decade and (b) perpetuating Goldman Sachs’ hold over
US government policy; (3) he had no plan, indeed no evident interest, in
building a progressive movement in the
US, leaving state and local Democratic candidates to fend on their own with
almost no support from his office or the national Democratic Party, resulting
in a red wave of state legislatures ready to use voter suppression, gerrymandering
and other “business friendly” legislation to set social policy as far back
toward the 1920s as possible.
The lesson of the past 23 years is
inescapable: centrism will always lose
to its alternative, if there is one. The reason is that Democratic
centrism, neoliberalism if you will, is built around the central presumption that
a progressive administration can do anything so long as it does not threaten
capital (Goldman Sachs in ’08, Google-Facebook-Amazon today). Unfortunately,
the world’s problems, from climate change to military conflict to social
inequality, all can be traced directly back to the fact that an economic system
predicated on the notion that “greed is good,” and that the perpetual need for growth
will always take precedence over absolute fixed limits of natural resources
(land and its mineral contents; water; sunlight), presents an impossible
conundrum that is only addressable by confronting capital head-on.
From this I conclude that the one thing the Democrats must not do is
to put up a centrist against Trump. The inside-the-beltway notion that
Trump is so far to the right that everything to his left is up for grabs fails
to translate into how voters actually cast ballots. The idea that the most
conservative or centrist candidate will occupy the largest portion of the
political spectrum and deny Trump victory has already been tested with Hillary
Clinton and we can see what that got us.
But it’s the same logic that got us two terms with George W Bush as well. Voters
have been telling us for 20 years that they get it that neoliberalism doesn’t
work. More of the same will enable Trump’s demented absence of any real policy
to be perceived as an assault on capital elites – it’s not (really) – and that
is a prescription for four more years
and at least two more Supreme Court justices to perpetuate the stranglehold
over policy of white male privilege.
When I look at the Democratic field
with this in mind, I see some clear enough divisions: four plausible
progressives: Sanders, Warren, Andrew Yang, and conceivably John Delaney; a lot
of Obama-esque faux progressives (run left, govern from the center) of whom
Kamala Harris and Cory Booker have the greatest name recognition at the moment;
some candidates who are trying to put themselves forward with no policy objectives
at all (e.g., Beto and Buttigieg, but check out Mary Williamson); and one
unrepentant centrist in Joe Biden.
From this, I come away with two
conclusions: of the 20 declared candidates, there are just a couple who (a)
could win and (b) could govern with
enough success to give us a fighting chance to survive the coming cataclysm
that climate change plus the resulting massive global displacement are sending
our way. There are, however, quite a few others who might be able to beat Trump
and his Apocalypse Now administration. The
only candidate who cannot beat Trump, under any circumstances, is Biden.
For the rest, I think the question for the not-quite-progressives comes down to
who could be persuaded to pursue an administration that would challenge
capitalism’s catastrophic endgame with the encouragement of a lot of outside
agitation. Right now that is deep weeds
speculation and I’m not ready to wade into it here. But make no mistake, the
bill on failing to rid ourselves of capitalism is coming due very rapidly. It
is not only the next administration’s job one, but in many respects its only
real job. Anything less is just Trump Lite.
After Super Tuesday on March 3 of next
year, this race will telescope down to no more than three real candidates: one
progressive, one “anybody but the socialist” candidate (Biden has the edge, but
10 months is a very long time for him to not self-destruct), and probably
Kamala Harris, who will win California and may well have the faux progressive
lane to herself by then. There will still be other candidates, just as there
were in 2008 when the Iowa Caucus turned the race into a Hillary versus Obama
contest, but they will be dropping like flies as their funds dry up. This means
that the first four contests, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina,
matter terribly for anyone without immediate national name recognition. If
Harris carries either South Carolina or Nevada, her position becomes far
stronger.
One lesson of 2008 was that Hillary
Clinton was prepared for any of the white male candidates (Edwards, Dodd, Biden)
who might emerge as the “anybody but Hillary” candidate following the Iowa
caucus, but she was caught off-guard by Obama. She could not pose her project of
neoliberalism’s third term as change or new against a candidate who better
represented the base of the party and was running to her left. My gut feel in
late April is that how it plays out in 2020 will depend on who is the third
major candidate against Sanders-or-Warren and Harris. If it’s any of the faux
progressives, then I think that the advantage goes to Bernie or Liz, while
Harris would be stronger if the third lane is occupied by Biden – it’s the one
lineup in which her own policy history might not be a weakness.
Bernie, like Biden, has a capacity for
a tin ear on positions that make his campaign a little like watching Charlie
Chaplin on a tightrope over a very deep ravine. Ten months is a very long time,
especially when getting there means you still have seven-plus months before the
general election. Getting the DSA endorsement early was more important than
people thus far have acknowledged in that it shuts out Warren from a major
source for volunteers right when volunteers are most needed. She has her own
blind spots to worry about, but she is much better positioned than Yang or
Delaney if Bernie makes a misstep.
For the baby Obamas, the faux
progressives, from former Goldman Sachs exec Cory Booker to Mayor Pete and Beto,
Tulsi, Amy and Kirsten, I seriously think their best shot comes not from
competing with Kamala Harris over a lane that she already has locked up, but rather moving right to a more purely
centrist position and becoming the heir apparent the minute Biden stumbles. Inside
the beltway where most elected officials and pundits live, the idea of a
Democratic Party that challenges capitalism sounds like a prescription for
self-destruction – never mind two-plus decades of evidence to the contrary – and
I do think Harris is their primary opponent at least until Super Tuesday.
And on March 4th? That is
when the real race for 2020 will begin.