THE NEXT DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT

The passing of John McCain and the public discussion of his life and legacy has left me contemplating an issue that is 30 months away. What type of presidential candidate would I support for the Democratic party nomination in 2020?  If pressed, who would actually be my choice?

My view is that Trump has little chance of being impeached and will most certainly be the Republican candidate in 2020. With this in mind, there is a tendency in this age of Trump to nominate a Democrat who mirrors some of Trump’s characteristics. That is, to consider potential presidential candidates who are not career politicians, who are independently wealthy and who present out sized egos to confront the President on his own terms.

Prospective candidates who fall into this bucket now include entertainer Oprah Winfrey; Entrepreneur, TV personality and owner of the Dallas Mavericks Mark Cuban; and former President of Starbucks, Howard Schultz.  I would also place in this category former Mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg because I do not consider him a career politician and attorney Michael Avenatti, who is representing porn star Stormy Daniels.  Avenatti is by no means a billionaire but he meets the other criteria.  He is becoming a recognizable face on cable news and has expressed an interest in running for president, urging democrats to: “be a party that fights fire with fire.”

 In this group of potential candidates, Michael Bloomberg would be my clear choice.  But his candidacy is problematic.  First he is a registered Independent.  Second his track record as Mayor of New York, while admirable, is not the stuff to attract progressive democrats.  Third, he would find it next to impossible to survive primary challenges from those to his left.  To his credit and to ingratiate himself with democrats, Bloomberg has spent upwards of 80 million dollars to help Democrats retake the House in 2018. Still, his best chance of becoming the candidate might be to accept the nomination at a hopelessly deadlocked Democratic Convention.

 If a candidate other than Bloomberg were to emerge from this group, it would be a clear sign that the Trump presidency has opened a new era in presidential politics.  Celebrity name recognition and personal wealth would have replaced years of earned political acumen as the ticket to the White House.

The second bucket of potential candidates I will label as the young Turks.  In this group would fall a number of possibilities, many of whom have already expressed some interest in running.  There is New Orleans Mayor, Mitch Landrieu, a dark horse to be sure.  A bit more viable in ascending order are: Ohio Senator, Sherrod Brown; New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo; Connecticut Senator, Chris Murphy; Former U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder Jr.; Former Virginia Governor, Terry McAuliffe; former Massachusetts Governor, Deval Patrick; New York Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand; New Jersey Senator, Corry Booker; California Senator, Kamala D. Harris; and the leader in this group, Massachusetts Senator, Elizabeth Warren.

My view among these candidates is that the first consideration should be to favor a qualified woman candidate.  Much of the pain of the Hillary Clinton lose would be repaired if the democratic party were to rebound four years later and be the first Party to place a woman in the White House.  This would advance Kristen Gillibrand, Kamala D. Harris and Elizabeth Warren to the top of my list.

Of these three, Elizabeth Warren has the better name recognition and national organization but is somewhat of a lightning rod.  Her sharp rhetoric and attack dog style might actually help Trump to frame the debate in the Twitter wars that would surely dominate the general election.  My feeling today is that either of the other two would make a better candidate, although neither is as dynamic as Warren.  Much would depend on how deep a following either of them could attract over the course of a congested and hard fought primary.

This brings us to the third and most likely bucket to produce the next democratic nominee for the presidency, the old political warriors.  There are two potential candidates, Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden.

 Sanders would seem to hold a strong grip on the leaderless Democratic Party because in 2016 he won at least 40 per cent of the primary vote in 37 States.  But in back of his dedicated, progressive young following his ceiling for support is low. I am not convinced that the country is ready for an Independent and avowed socialist to be elected president.  Moreover, his election would guarantee another four years of gridlock that would make even the Obama years seem tame.  In order for Democrats to govern, the next president must be part of a wide tent solution and not be the issue that invites partisan attacks.

Biden, on the other hand offers up a wider appeal in his liberal, but more fiscally conservative positions and voting record.  After a long Senate career and four years serving as Vice President, he is far and away the most well-traveled and knowledgeable statesman in the pack.  He knows how to campaign, he knows how to bargain with Congress and he knows how to govern.

Recent events have proven that there is no longer a McCain following of note in the Republican Party.  That is, elected Republicans are no longer inclined to follow their moral compasses or independent views rather than an uncompromising party line.  The truth is that but for McCain’s larger than life persona, he would not have won his last election to the Senate in Arizona. 

It does not follow that there is no longer a Biden following in the Democratic party.  The progressive left is more forgiving than the tea party Trumpian right. I believe the Democratic goal of recapturing the White House with the strongest unifying candidate will win out over pure ideological considerations.  If Biden were to win the nomination, Sander’s supporters would fall in line with greater urgency than they did for Hilary Clinton in 2016.

At the recent McCain memorial service in Arizona, Biden was among the last to provide a tribute. His remarks began with the words: “My name is Joe Biden.  I am a Democrat. I loved John McCain.” 

It is my view that this attitude of bipartisanship, along with Biden’s long record of service and blue collar roots is exactly what the country needs to begin the long road back from four years of turbulent tribal warfare.  Biden could enhance his candidacy by declaring he will only serve for one term in the White House (he will be 78 in 2020 as will Sanders) and by choosing early in the campaign, a progressive young Turk, to serve as his vice president. 

Joe Biden and one of the woman listed above would make an excellent ticket to ensure that Donald Trump is sent packing, back to his penthouses, golf resorts, indictments and lawsuits.

POLITICAL STRATEGY IN THE AGE OF TRUMP

I have often found it helpful to view events through the lens of strategy.  It is superficial and often misleading to read a headline or a quote and attempt to draw conclusions of the actors’ intentions.  It is quite another exercise to look behind the words and attempt to decipher a more complex strategy at work.

Leaders of armies, sports teams, major corporations and political parties all have strategies.  Having a strategy suggests an ability to look up from the short term and the trivial, to view the long term and the essential, to address causes rather than symptoms, to see the woods rather than individual trees. As important as having a strategy, is the ability to understand the strategy of an opponent and to incorporate that understanding into one’s own strategy.

In my view, classical Greek cultural has provided us with the most fundamental and still most valuable competing interests in developing a strategy, brute force vs. trickery.  These contrasting qualities sprang from Homer represented respectively by Achilles (strength) in the Iliad and Odysseus (cunning) in the Odyssey. These concepts were expanded on by Machiavelli as force vs. guile. On the one hand outsmarting an opponent risked less loss from open conflict, on the other it demonstrated an opponent that could not be trusted when ongoing negotiations were in order.

I often find myself comparing similar strategies employed by different actors over the course of history.  For example, a review of George Washington’s strategy during the American Revolution looks a great deal like the North Vietnamese strategy during the War in Vietnam.  In both cases the weaker combatant let the more powerful opponent occupy the cities; took control of the countryside; would strike the enemy through small skirmishes; and engaged in larger battles only when the conditions were right.  There was an overall strategy that the superior enemy, fighting far from its homeland, would become disillusioned with the war effort and call for an end to hostilities.  Both the American colonial and the North Vietnamese armies won their respective victories by exercising cunning against strength.  

Sometimes a strategy works exceedingly well under one set of circumstances but utterly fails in another.  The Marshall Plan must be considered one of the most successful rebuilding programs in history, following a major conflict.  Western Europe and Japan were given the economic assistance that permitted stable democratic societies to grow and flourish.  When a similar strategy was implemented in Iraq, a society with a history of corruption, tribal factions and religious differences, establishing a stable democratic society has proven next to impossible.

Strategy in sports is an American tradition that now occupies more commentary space than any other topic of the daily newspaper.  Managers and coaches try to create favorable match ups and the sporting public, writers and broadcasters spend hours dissecting and criticizing plays that took only seconds to perform.  Consider the decision by the Seattle Seahawks to throw the ball at the one-yard line at the end of Super Bowl 49. The pass was intercepted and defeat was snatched from the hands of victory.  That one play has attracted as much attention as any strategic decision of the last decade.

Which brings me to the state of American politics as it relates to formulating strategy. There is a tendency among those opposed to the Trump Presidency to react to every tweet and to take the moral inventory of every Republican who does not “stand-up” to Trump, without considering the strategy behind such behavior.

Each inflammatory word or action by Trump receives the full attention of the media and from political commentators.  This leaves little space to consider the less flashy but more important questions of:  What are Trump and the Republicans seeking to accomplish?  What federal programs are being dismantled, and who will be effected? What regulations have been revoked in the areas of finance, the environment, education and medical insurance? How many conservative federal judges have been seated that will control federal jurisprudence for decades to come?  What has the new tax law done to inflate the federal deficit?

In my view, the Republican party has a strategy that is crystal clear and must not be overlooked.  Ride the Trump train for all it is worth until its inevitable crash.  Undo all the achievements of the Obama years and then take aim at the accomplishments of the FDR and LBJ administrations as well. 

The Trump strategy is a bit different but just as evident.  Control the news cycle with as much noise as possible so that the dismantling of progressive achievements can occur in relative obscurity.  The phrase “crazy like a fox” gains new meaning once Trump’s strategy is understood.

If any political group does not have a coherent strategy, it is the Democratic Party.  Trump is playing the political game by a new and little understood set of rules.  But attacking the steady stream of Trump improprieties and hoping to take back the House of Representatives followed by the pipe dream of impeachment does not make a strategy.  At best, this approach will win some elections but fall far short of the mandate needed by the democrats to govern effectively.  Now that the paradigm has shifted a new strategy must be developed that informs citizens on a daily basis what they are losing, not what Trump is saying. 

The next two national election cycles will not be won or lost based on morality, civility, character, outrageous conduct or removal from office.  That is the narrative Trump is hoping will be adopted by the Democratic Party.  Such an approach will harden Trump’s support and permit campaigns to be decided by gutter politics, according to his rules.  Rather, the elections must be about the electorate gaining a clear understanding of the republican strategy, what is being taken away and what must be done to win it back. 

To return to the Greek concept of strategy, democrats ultimately are in a position of strength if the party is able to unite all elements of the party and bring them to the polls. This should well outpace the Trump strategy based on fewer republican voters and cunning. But for this to work, democratic strategy must about policy and not simply about attacking Trump and his supporters.  Democrats must avoid the Trojan Horse which seeks to divert from the real issues and to flip the narrative. Meaningful victory with a mandate to govern will be achieved by sticking to the facts and to the economic, social and international issues that concern voters.

BE THANKFUL FOR HOMETOWN GOVERNMENT

Those who believed that the federal government would be less dysfunctional after the Republicans were in control of both houses of Congress and the White House after the 2016 election have been disappointed.  Despite the concentration of political power in one party, fractures within the Republican ranks and the heavy turnover of personnel and other uncertainties within Trump World at the White House have resulted in little cohesion in setting policy or passing legislation. If anything, the sorrowful business as usual, as members of Congress continue to hurl ideological abstractions at each other and the inability to exercise bipartisan compromise, has led many elected officials to resign or not seek reelection.

Governing within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has not been much better.  Over the past decade, a Republican Governor, Tom Corbett, backed by a State House and Senate controlled by Republicans were unable to reach consensus on any major issue confronting Pennsylvania.  When Corbett was replaced by a Democrat, Tom Wolf, things got worse. Last year Pennsylvania was forced to go without a State budget for 267 days—the longest period without a full budget in Pennsylvania history.

Citizens have a right to be discouraged and to wonder whether our American experiment in democracy is destined to fail.  In recent years political discourse has morphed from the art of “getting to yes” into an all or nothing blood sport of brinkmanship and blaming the opposition.

Thankfully there is a bright spot in American governance and it is happening in our own back yard. As David Brooks pointed out in a recent column: “Localism is thriving these days because many cities have more coherent identities than the nation as a whole. It is thriving because while national politics takes place through the filter of the media circus, local politics by and large does not. It is thriving because we’re in an era of low social trust. People really have faith only in the relationships right around them, the change agents who are right on the ground.” (NYT 7/19/18)

In order to put this observation to the test, consider our local County government in Washington County.  While cities, counties and municipalities are not without their own share of crises (the near bankruptcy of the City of Pittsburgh; the Mayor of Monessen in Westmoreland County boycotting meetings) such examples tend to be short term and ultimately solvable.  In Washington County, while I am hardly a lifelong resident, in the few decades I have lived here I cannot recall I major crisis in local County government.

Certainly, when I look around there are issues I would address, sore spots I would improve and projects in full swing I would not have undertaken.  I have ranted on about such matters in the past and will continue to do so.  But on the whole our three County Commissioners appear like Solomon, Cincinnatus, and Winston Churchill when compared to the elected officials in Harrisburg and Washington.

I am not here to be an apologist for Washington County Government, but when something is working well it deserves to be singled out.  It is clear to me that local knowledge and a feel for how people think and how to get things done is a key to success.  Local power is more relational and less based on rigid rules and regulations.  County elders, many not elected to anything, are revered for their knowledge and are the glue that help hold our community together.

There are two arguments I frequently here, both involving our Commissioners that I think are misplaced and short sighted.  First, that the work of a Commissioner, when the electioneering is over, involves little more than attending a meeting each month and lots of photo ops at events around the County.  The second, mostly expressed by County Republicans, is that a shake-up in County government would place us on a better footing.

In rebutting the first assertion, I would point out that when our Commissioners stay out of the news, delegate wisely to Department Directors and are able to reach a consensus on major issues, they are exercising responsible governance.  Conversely, when a former Pittsburgh Mayor and members of City Counsel attacked each other daily as the City went bankrupt, it certainly seemed like everyone was working hard, in the middle of a circus atmosphere in which little was accomplished.

There are many complex moving parts to consider in placing Washington County on a sound economic footing.  Be thankful for three elected officials that work well together in accomplishing this goal.

Regarding the second assertion, I have lived through a good example of why replacing qualified elected officials is not something the voters will come to be proud of.  In Allegheny County, such was the mood of the heavily democratic electorate, in placing two Republican Commissioners in power in 1996, for the first time in six decades.

The Republican majority quickly moved to replace long time civil servants with their own political appointees.  This resulted in confusion and bad decision making throughout County government.  Moreover, the two Republican Commissioners soon had a falling out on taxes and other issues.  More than one political analyst concluded that the chaos, bumbling, bickering, financial problems and lower bond ratings were a direct result of the Republican takeover.  The political mess led directly to the voters of Allegheny County adopting an executive form of local government in place of three Commissioners.

Washington County is fortunate to have a County Government that functions well.  The grass is not greener out in the political wastelands.  Those that are advocating a change in leadership are asking for plenty of crisis headlines and dysfunction.