The Case Against Narrowing The Democratic Presidential Field

Ann Althouse linked to yet another of those “There’s too many Democrats running for President!” pieces (this one from Colbert I. King) that appear as recurring theme in the regular clown car updates.

The chance that Democratic Party convention delegates assembled in July 2020 at the Fiserv Forum in Milwaukee will choose as their nominee for president of the United States a gentleman from the great nonstate of the District of Columbia named Colbert Isaiah King is zero.

Of course, there is a reasonable degree of certainty that the same fate awaits Bill de Blasio, John Delaney, Julián Castro, Tulsi Gabbard, Jay Inslee, Tim Ryan, Michael F. Bennet, Kirsten Gillibrand, John Hickenlooper, Eric Swalwell, Marianne Williamson and Andrew Yang.

The difference between them and moi, however, is that I am not going to waste time, money or any thought whatsoever over that foregone conclusion.

Those wannabe Democratic nominees, on the other hand, are going to fritter away energy next week in Miami in what are billed as the first Democratic presidential primary debates. In fact, the debates are little more than a cattle call in which contestants try mightily to stand out from the herd. Good luck with that.

The sheer volume of noncompetitive competitors is a distraction that Democrats can ill afford, given the enormity of the disaster at hand. Nothing, absolutely nothing, is more important than getting that mean-spirited, embarrassingly gauche, wishy-washy blowhard out of the White House.

All of the Democratic fuming about staging a political revolution, shaking up the power structure, fighting the fossil fuel industry, taking down Wall Street, busting noses of the corporate elite, launching ground assaults on power and wealth-transforming the country — all that should be given over to building a well-planned and well-staffed presidential campaign apparatus that can support the candidate best able to do something about what’s happening now.

The chance that Democratic Party convention delegates assembled in July 2020 at the Fiserv Forum in Milwaukee will choose as their nominee for president of the United States a gentleman from the great nonstate of the District of Columbia named Colbert Isaiah King is zero.

Of course, there is a reasonable degree of certainty that the same fate awaits Bill de Blasio, John Delaney, Julián Castro, Tulsi Gabbard, Jay Inslee, Tim Ryan, Michael F. Bennet, Kirsten Gillibrand, John Hickenlooper, Eric Swalwell, Marianne Williamson and Andrew Yang.

The difference between them and moi, however, is that I am not going to waste time, money or any thought whatsoever over that foregone conclusion.

Those wannabe Democratic nominees, on the other hand, are going to fritter away energy next week in Miami in what are billed as the first Democratic presidential primary debates. In fact, the debates are little more than a cattle call in which contestants try mightily to stand out from the herd. Good luck with that.

The sheer volume of noncompetitive competitors is a distraction that Democrats can ill afford, given the enormity of the disaster at hand. Nothing, absolutely nothing, is more important than getting that mean-spirited, embarrassingly gauche, wishy-washy blowhard out of the White House.

All of the Democratic fuming about staging a political revolution, shaking up the power structure, fighting the fossil fuel industry, taking down Wall Street, busting noses of the corporate elite, launching ground assaults on power and wealth-transforming the country — all that should be given over to building a well-planned and well-staffed presidential campaign apparatus that can support the candidate best able to do something about what’s happening now.

Our country is in a bad way. Election Day 2020 warrants a single-minded focus.

This is no time for Democrats to humor the ambition of newbies seeking to enter the big time or to pamper grizzled veterans out for a last hurrah. Better that de Blasio, Gabbard, et al. plow what little they have mustered in money and volunteers into organizing, fundraising and mobilizing voters in battleground states where the presidency will be won or lost.

Isn’t there something a bit familiar about that tone of voice? It’s the tone of the DNC circa 2016: “Shut up and eat your Hillary!”

Personally I’m not entirely unsympathetic to the message, as I’d love to be stop writing about Eric Swallwell (The Man From Dunning-Kruger), Tim Ryan, Michael Bennet, etc. (And King doesn’t even mention Mike Gravel, Wayne Messam, Steve Bullock or Seth Moulton). But I think that fundamentally it’s philosophically wrong.

This is America, damn it! Let the voters decide! In many other countries (possibly even most), ordinary people don’t get to vote in a primary to decide who their local district candidate will be. (In the UK, there are race and sex quotas, approved lists and assessment boards.) Democrats short-change their voters and their party by artificially limiting the voices allowed to compete on its behalf. Pete Buttigieg was a longshot who caught fire, and three months ago the author would be calling for him to get out of the race. Who’s to say another longshot won’t catch fire? Likewise, Julian Castro was considered a serious candidate, until he ruined his credibility by actually running.

We saw two different approaches play out in 2016: the RNC let the process play naturally on a neutral field, while the DNC went all in the tank for Hillary’s coronation because it was “her turn.” The result was alienated Bernie Sanders supporters bitter at how their candidate got shafted. How’d that work out for Democrats?

Nobody gave Trump a chance to win at the start of 2015, when everybody was supposed to step aside for Jeb! How bitter would Trump or Cruz or Paul supporters be today be if the RNC had jury-rigged criteria to exclude them? Letting candidates fight and fail is far less embittering for party members than never letting them be heard. (I should know: My presidential primary choices have included not only Cruz, but Jack Kemp, Phil Gramm and Rick Perry.)

Primary fights are one of the ways in which political parties grapple with ideas. And if any political party needs new ideas in 2019, it’s the Democrats circa 2019, with it’s toxic brew of identity politics and corpratist socialism. Some of the supposed no-hopers are interesting weirdos with unorthodox policy positions that Democrats probably aren’t hearing from anywhere else (I’m thinking Yang, Gabbard and Williamson here). Even John Delaney’s comparatively sane policies (he’s what an actual moderate would probably look like if Democrats had any of them left) are something Democratic voters should be exposed to.

Ignoring those voices is basically saying “Cut it out with all the democracy and let the party bosses, pollsters and big money donors pick your candidate for you.”

There’s nothing that says Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders or Kamala Harris won’t be as disasterous for Democratic Party fortunes as Hillary was in 2016. Let the process play out and let the chips fall where they may.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2 Responses to “The Case Against Narrowing The Democratic Presidential Field”

  1. Howard says:

    Wasn’t Obama also a long shot who caught fire?

    Hillary lost the 2008 nomination in large part because she wasn’t prepared to compete. She arrogantly believed the nomination was a foregone conclusion, hers for the taking, and all this primary process is just extra ceremony leading up to her “coronation”.

    Then … well, this junior senator who spoke at Kerry’s convention started getting headlines … and kept getting more. And more. Having joined the Senate well after 2003, he didn’t have the baggage (among D’s) of having voted in favor of war with Iraq, like Hillary did.

    I say, let the long shots fly.

  2. Lawrence Person says:

    Obama wasn’t really a longshot in 2008. Remember that he gave the 2004 DNC keynote speech, which tagged him as an up-and-comer, and he raised $20 million in Q1 2007, so very early on it became a Obama-Clinton-Edwards fight.

Leave a Reply