Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts tagged as “2020 Presidential Election”

Will Bernie and the Woke Progressives Lead the Democrats to Certain Defeat in November?

Are the Democrats blowing it? Are they about to hand the election to the one man they despise above all else, Donald J. Trump? That’s the fear of David Frum, who makes precisely that case in a brilliant and insightful essay in The Atlantic.

Frum, of course, is the intellectual leader of the Never Trump movement and someone who’s moved left politically in the past 15 years, ever since warning of the “axis of evil” as a speechwriter for George W. Bush in 2003. Still, he is a keen observer of the political scene and someone well worth listening to.

Frum focuses his firepower on Bernie Sanders, who continues to surge in the polls. Bernie, Frum argues, can’t win. His positions on matters of economic and foreign policy are too extreme and too easily caricatured and attacked to prevail against Trump.

Plus: he has real trouble appealing to suburban women and African Americans, “the two groups whose greater or lesser enthusiasm will make the difference for a Trump challenger in November,” Frum argues.

Equally worrisome: Bernie has something of a glass jaw. He “is a fragile candidate… [who has never] had to face serious personal scrutiny.” He and his team

“are experts in Democratic Party factional infighting. Few have dealt with people who do not play by the rules of the mainstream Democratic Party. They have always been the rule breakers, the people who got inside the other team’s decision cycle.

“They have been the Minutemen fighting the Redcoats, picking off the other side’s regulars from behind trees and fences. Now they are about to experience what happens when a militia faces off on an open field against a ruthless modern army with cluster bombs and napalm. They will be shredded and torched.”

But if Bernie is the Democrats’ weakest candidate and a surefire loser in a general election matchup against Trump, the source of his political appeal is nonetheless instructive, says Frum, and something that Dems need to understand, internalize and embrace.

Simply put, Bernie is an old-fashioned socialist who focuses on bread-and-butter economic issues—jobs, healthcare, education, student debt relief, the social-safety net, et al. Other left-wing progressives running for president—Elizabeth Warren most notably—focus more on identity politics and on being “woke” or politically correct.

Frum is too polite to explicitly say it (especially in the pages of The Atlantic, which caters to woke, upscale progressives), but identity politics, left-wing cultural grievances, and PC purity tests are a real turnoff to most ordinary, working- and middle-class voters, black and white.

In fact, I believe that Trump’s 2016 win is far more attributable to the Democrats’ increasing embrace of cultural Marxism than it is to Trump’s embrace of economic populism.

Frum rightly fears that if the Dems continue to lean forward where they are weakest, on matters of culture and identity politics, they will lose in November to Trump. Thus he implores Democrats to lay off of their obsession with woke, identity politics, and, instead, to embrace Bernie’s more universal, broad-based, populist appeal.

It’s sound political advice, but will Democrats accept it?

Frum points to the fundamental divide within the Democratic Party: between the mostly white, affluent, upscale, college-educated progressives, for whom being woke is everything; and less affluent working- and middle-class blacks, who care more about the practical bread-and-butter issues that are at the heart of the Sanders’ campaign.

The white, affluent elite dominate the political dialogue and discussion and are the Dem’s donor class. However, the less affluent middle- and working class blacks are “in many ways the true base of the Democratic Party,” Frum says. They are the voters who will make all the difference in the South Carolina primary and, on Super Tuesday, in the South and industrial Midwest.

Ironically, Sanders has had real difficulty appealing to black voters; but Frum sees evidence that this is changing. “The latest CNN poll,” he notes, “showed Sanders erasing Biden’s lead among nonwhite voters—perhaps in spite of Sanders’s indifference to identity politics, or maybe, just maybe, because of that indifference” (though Frum acknowledges that this CNN poll may be an outlier).

If the polls are correct, then Biden is Frum’s only real hope for stopping Sanders and beating Trump. Biden has held up well, but he is still 77 years old and clearly not the man or candidate he was 10 or 20 years ago. He’s lost a step, and father time can be unkind.

Yet, as Frum observes, “the left-but-not-woke idea does have power—including with many members of racial minorities.” What we don’t yet know is whether that idea has enough power to overcome the Democratic Party’s woke brigades, or whether, instead, that idea will become their latest victim. All eyes are on Iowa, New Hampshire, and especially more racially and ethnically diverse South Carolina and Nevada. Stay tuned.

Feature photo credit: Associated Press via VOA News.

Why, on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Trump is Fighting for Black Votes and Dems Are Desperate to Stop Him

Martin Luther King, Jr.’s most significant political legacy, of course, is enfranchising millions of black voters in the South and raising the importance of the black vote there and, indeed, nationwide. Black voters before and since have voted overwhelmingly Democratic.

However, today, on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, 2020, we see clear indications that Democrats and Republicans alike are fighting hard, if not always scrupulously, for the votes of African Americans.

President Trump and Vice President Pence, for instance, both went to the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial in Washington, D.C., to pay their respects to the slain civil rights leader. The White House made a video of their visit, which the President tweeted to his 71 million-plus followers.

Trump also issued a Presidential Proclamation commemorating Dr. King and pledging to ensure that all Americans, regardless of their race, class or gender, “have every opportunity to realize a better life for themselves and their families.”

Trump touted the nation’s historic economic growth, the creation of more than seven million new jobs, and record-high employment for backs and other minorities. “Economic opportunity,” he noted, “is the greatest engine for empowering individuals and families to overcome adversity, and we will continue to fight for opportunity for all Americans.”

And of course, Trump took to Twitter to underscore, in his own inimitable way, the good news for African Americans:

Trump and the GOP are wise to fight for black support. The President and his team have a very good story to tell and an impressive record of achievement that, arguably, has disproportionately benefited African Americans and other minorities.

Indeed, not only is the unemployment rate the lowest that it’s been in half a century, but wages are rising and the barriers to entrepreneurship and business formation are falling.

Trump and the GOP also can point to criminal justice reform, which disproportionately benefits African Americans and other minorities by allowing federal inmates early release opportunities and a second chance to find work.

Doubting Thomases complain that these efforts are all in vain because Democrats have a hard lock on the black vote. African Americans, after all, vote 90-percent+ for Dem presidential candidates and have been doing so now for decades.

History. This is true, but the past is not necessarily prologue. Recall that from the end of the Civil War in 1865 up until the New Deal in 1936, African Americans were a reliably Republican voting block. Voting patterns can and do change over time, but only when candidates and parties actively reach out to voters and seek their support.

So, it is good thing that Trump and the GOP are making a genuine, good-faith effort to reach out to black voters. It is not good for the country when one political party monopolizes a key voting demographic. Competition in the political marketplace, no less than competition in the economic marketplace, is beneficial because it spurs (policy) excellence and innovation.

As for the Democrats, they, too, recognize the importance of the black vote. Thus eight of the party’s presidential candidates locked arms today and marched together toward the state capital building in South Carolina to commemorate the King holiday.

Paradoxically, the Democrats’ utter dominance of the black vote may make them more vulnerable politically—if not in 2020, then certainly, in the years and decades to come. It would take just a small shift in the black vote, after all, to completely upend the Dems’ strategy for victory in presidential contests.

“Increase Trump’s share of the black vote to even as low as 15 percent, and Democratic chances of winning the electoral college become very low,” writes long-term political observer Henry Olsen, a senior fellow at the the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

Dem Desperation. In short, the Democrats desperately need to retain their lock on the black vote and they know it. Which is why their default position every four years is to accuse GOP presidential candidates of racism and bigotry. Their intent is to scare black voters, so that they keep voting Democratic.

It was not surprising, then, that Joe Biden went to a black church in South Carolina Sunday and charged that Trump is allied with the Ku Klux Klan. Although ludicrous, outrageous, and clearly beyond the pale, such a charge is utterly unsurprising.

This is what Democrats running for president do: because they know that they can ill-afford to lose black voters, either now, in the primaries, or in the November presidential election. Just win, baby.

These vicious and unscrupulous race-baiting tactics are a stain on American politics. The good news, though, is that both political parties recognize the importance of black voters and are competing hard for their support, and that’s something to be thankful for on this Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

Feature photo credit: The Valley City Times Record.

Vladimir Putin Is More Focused on Economic Growth Than the Dem Presidential Candidates

If you want to get a sense of how backward and upside down our politics has become, juxtapose these two events: yesterday’s Democratic Presidential debate and today’s speech by Russian President Vladimir Putin on the state of the Russian Federation.

The Democratic Presidential candidates talked about their myriad plans to grow the size and scope of government; yet, the words economic growth never once left their lips. But in the absence of robust economic growth, it is impossible to see how these Dem presidential wanna-bees could finance their costly schemes to create new and vast federal entitlements such as “Medicare for All.”

“‘We are literally talking about increases in government spending that would double the size of government as a share of gross domestic product,” Maya MacGuineas told CNN reporter Ron Brownstein. Brownstein and MacGuineas calculate that Sanders is proposing an astronomical $30 trillion to $60 trillion in new spending over the next 10 years.

MacGuinease is “President of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonprofit group that advocates [for] reducing federal deficits.”

Admittedly, Sanders (and Elizabeth Warren) may be in a league of their own when it comes to making government huge again. But the rest of the Democratic field isn’t far behind, truth be told. They all want to make the government much bigger and more dominant vis-a-vis the private sector. Economic growth to them is just assumed and taken as a given

Not so for Putin, who, according to CNBC, told the Russian people:

“High economic growth rates are essential. This is the only way to overcome poverty and ensure steady and perceptible increases in income. This is the key to success.

“[By] 2021, Russia’s economic growth rate must exceed 3% and stay above the global average afterwards. This objective should not be discarded,” he said.

Putin said that areas to focus on were labor productivity, improving Russia’s business climate, removing ‘infrastructural constraints for economic development’ and lastly, “training modern personnel.”

Clearly, Putin is more focused on economic growth than the Democratic presidential candidates! The Russian dictator realizes that, unless his country’s economy grows much more rapidly than it is now, all of his dreams and aspirations for a greater, imperial Russia are for naught.

Would that Bernie, Elizabeth, Pete, and Joe all had similar situational awareness and understanding.

Bernie’s Charmed Political Life Masks His Ideological Extremism

Bernie’s surge in Iowa and his steadfast core of support nationwide mask his extreme left-wing views. Most political reporting, after all, is focused on the competitive horserace and not on matters of substantive public policy. This has resulted in the norming or legitimization of Bernie’s far-left ideas, as voters are led to believe that the Vermont senator is just the latest in a long line of conventional Democratic presidential frontrunners.

Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Bernie, remember, is an avowed socialist fully committed to the redistribution of wealth, punishing and punitive rates of taxation, government control and coercion, public-sector monopolies, and American military withdrawal and retreat.

In short, Bernie is no JFK. He isn’t even Jimmy Carter or Barack Obama. How, then, did we arrive at this improbable and frightening moment where Bernie has become a bona fide presidential frontrunner who might well capture the Democratic presidential nomination and perhaps even the Presidency of the United States?

In an illuminating piece published today, National Review’s Jim Geraghty helps answer this question. Bernie, Geraghty points out, has led a charmed political life marked by incredible luck and a series of one unlikely success after another.

For example, Bernie first ran for office “in late 1971 because he volunteered and no one else did… He received one percent of the vote,” but gained valuable political experience. “In 1980, when he first ran for mayor of the town [of Burlington, Vermont, Bernie] won by 10 votes over a wildly overconfident five-term incumbent who ‘hardly bothered to campaign.’

“…In 1988,” Geraghty notes, Bernie “ran for Vermont’s open U.S. House seat and lost, in what could have been the end of his political career.” But alas, he ran again two years later in a six-way race.

The incumbent, Republican Peter Smith, had changed his mind on the so-called assault-weapons ban, infuriating gun owners and their political leaders. This led to an endorsement of the then-independent Sanders by . . . NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre. (“The gun vote brought us down,” Smith’s campaign manager later lamented.) Thus, with the help of the nation’s most powerful gun-rights group, Sanders was first elected to Congress. He’s been there ever since.

Yes, Bernie has been incredibly lucky. But as the old adage has it, you make your own luck. “Eighty percent of success is showing up,” explained Woody Allen.

Bernie has shown up, and he has competed politically, often when no one else would. Consequently, he is today knocking on the door to the Democratic presidential nomination, and he may well push the door open in Iowa Feb. 3. We’ll see.

The Trump Resemblance. In this way, Bernie bears a striking political resemblance to Donald Trump, another extraordinarily lucky politician who won (in 2016) largely just by showing up and competing politically. But like Trump, Bernie has his own peculiar ideas that run crosscurrent to the political mainstream.

We don’t hear much about these ideas because political reporting is what it is, and because of the cult of personality that surrounds “The Bern.” But make no mistake: Bernie’s radical positions are the essence of who and what he is politically. And precisely because his ideas are ideologically moored and grounded, they threaten to radically disrupt American life in ways Trump never dreamed of or even thought possible.

Trump’s peculiarities, after all, are his utter and complete self-absorption and narcissistic personality disorder. Bernie’s peculiarities, by contrast, have nothing to do with personality and everything to do with ideology, and, for that reason, are arguably far more dangerous. We will feel the burn, indeed.

The Focus on Iran and Iraq Helps Bernie

With the Iowa Caucuses just three weeks away, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has surged into the lead, with a 20% share of the vote in a poll published Fri., Jan. 10, by the Des Moines Register, CNN and Mediacom.

It is not hard to discern why Bernie is surging. As the purest of the pure anti-war warriors in an anti-war (Democratic) party, Bernie is benefiting from the renewed focus on Iran and Iraq. The Washington Post‘s Michael Scherer reports:

“The targeted killing of a top Iranian military official on the orders of President thrust a long-simmering foreign policy divide to the forefront of the Democratic nomination fight Friday, exposing divisions about America’s role in the world just one month before voting begins.”

Joe Biden’s Vote for War,” intones The New York Times. The vote ominously referenced is Biden’s October 2002 vote to authorize U.S. military action against Saddam Hussein. As the Times explains:

“The vote has exposed him [Biden] to direct and implicit criticism from his chief presidential rivals, including Senator Elizabeth Warren and former Mayor Pete Buttigieg, a military veteran, and especially Senator Bernie Sanders, who voted against the war as a Vermont congressman and whose campaign has sharpened its criticism of Mr. Biden in recent days.

“Now, three weeks before the Iowa caucuses—held in a state with a fierce antiwar streak— the issue threatens to be a campaign liability for Mr. Biden as he seeks to assure voters of his ability to handle a foreign crisis even as he works to distance himself from a war that has had enormous costs for his own family, and for the nation.”

Ideology is very relevant and important in Iowa. In 2016, notes NBC News:

“More than two-thirds of Iowa Dem participants identified themselves as liberals… Twenty-eight percent said they were ‘very liberal,’ and Sanders won them [over Hillary] by nearly 20 points, 58 percent to 39 percent…

“A larger share—40 percent—said they were just ‘liberal,’ and Clinton narrowly beat Sanders among these voters, 50 percent to 44 percent.”

Politics is filled with irony, and one of the greatest ironies surely is this: A great wartime achievement, the killing of terrorist mastermind Qassem Suleimani, may lead to a great political victory in Iowa by a fervent isolationist and anti-interventionist, Bernie Sanders. More ironic still: it may lead to Bernie’s election as President of the United States.