We can begin by rethinking our conventional assumptions because the challenge is not ordinary; it is historically unprecedented. It will require extraordinary public messaging and extraordinary leadership to take us to where we need to be.
The Messenger
When a neighbor recently did his presidential polling, there was general agreement that we are seeking in national leadership, a responsible candidate who can win. Someone whose program, policies and presentation powerfully inspire. Therefore, we need a fighter, who will relinquish the political status quo promoted by the current Democratic leadership. Let me conjure up some rough examples. Who are the fighters, recognizing some may not be electable at all, but who exhibit the kind of qualities and ideas I’m trying to define? I’m thinking of Chris Murphy of Connecticut; Sherrod Brown of Ohio; Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota; JB Pritzger of Illinois; John Osoff of Georgia; and Gavin Newsom of California. (Pennsylvania’s Governor Josh Shapiro has been strangely silent.) Also unelectables like the upcoming new mayor of New York, Zohran Mandami; Bernie Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez. These are fearless people swinging for the fences. It excludes other Democratic leaders like Senator Chuck Schumer, whose passionless, formulaic floor speeches turn off young voters and drives them out of the party. Also, I’m sorry to say, despite a brilliant performance, it excludes “showboating” Cory Booker. If there ever was a time to change direction, loyalty, and personnel, it is now. The opposition to the foregoing examples will contend that they, as messengers, are too radical; and that brings us to the message itself. They will say Democrats should stay with someone who conforms to the polls, who doesn’t stray from the economy, crime fighting at any expense, and tough immigration policy, and who doesn’t offend wealthy contributors or traditional blocs of voters. But that Clintonian assumption—“it’s the economy stupid”—which may be correct for ordinary times may not be enough for these extraordinary times when democracy itself, America’s definitive principle, is gravely and imminently threatened.
The Message
There is an understandable perception that it is essential to choose only one of the two currently fashionable courses of action for a party platform. Yes, the polls measured public resistance to the old message. But it’s my opinion, well-grounded in political practice, that the polls, seeking self-importance, erroneously limit the potential for teachability of the American public. We can do more than just reverse the past election’s emphasis and imitate The Republicans.
The public can, and must, grasp that an end to democratic values—authoritarian decision making—directly and inextricably damages the everyday lives of ordinary Americans. Democracy aims toward general public benevolence, not narrow self-interest, as its goal. Moreover, in its methodology—discussion, debate, and questioning of alternatives—democratic decision making less often results in decisions harmful to the interests of ordinary Americans. (However, while making that case, in candor and transparency, it must be conceded that past Democratic governance, relying on identity politics, and alliances with special interests, failed in these respects.) Take note: I’m not saying a sinking Trump economy should not be exploited. I am saying the Democratic Party’s candidate needs to stand for something more than pocketbook; because we are more, and we need to use it, also, to attract upcoming generations of millions of new young voters. Stressing the relationship between saving the republic and daily wellbeing—an alloy—is a more convincing argument than either alone.
Submitted by Barry Keene