A generational concept for Democrats at this moment-- courage in the face of fear...
Fear
“ Courage is not the absence of fear, but the triumph over it.''
- Nelson Mandela
Questions:
How could the Democrats have bungled the most important election in generations— possibly in our history?
Why was it such a surprise that a good man in his 80th year was running out of time and out of chances to slay his personal dragons?
The events that ensued after the debate debacle on June 27th will themselves be debated in history books and discussed in political circles annals far into the future. Joe Biden tried to defy time and was forced to face the limits it imposed on a political career that was both extended and accomplished. The election outcome became an urgent matter for Democrats. With Kamala Harris handpicked and endorsed by her president the race pitted a compromised and frenzied Donald Trump against Harris, whose lengthy career in government has shown her to be competent and responsible. For argument’s sake, she also happened to be black and female. I have argued that the 2024 election was lost because of Kamala Harris’ gender and race.
It is as good an analysis as any. It competes with others that blame Harris’s loss on her positions on issues that were polling positively when pitted against Trump’s hard-right populist positions like immigration, the economy, and cultural issues— abortion rights, gay rights, and civil rights. Policy and issues were stalking horses for a deeper, more sinister concern in this race.
Fear was the motivating force that Trump had wrestled from a dissolute and weakened conservative movement that had run out of ideas. Whereas right-wing politics from Joe McCarthy to the present has employed fear as a doctrine of policy, Donald Trump is their inevitable offspring. Democracies operate in transparency and deliberately manage change as an unavoidable challenge. Despots manipulate their citizens by making them suspicious and fearful of change. The MAGA prescription for change as it has unfolded under Trump is a throwback to feudal societies in which change was reserved for the manor while vassals lived to serve their masters. Governing policy for Trump is much the same as it was while he was a candidate— mere window dressing for a power grab. He prefers to rule by fiat.
Change
Such was the line of battle in the last election. Kamala Harris and the Democratic agenda were in line with traditional democratic principles. Democracies recognize the difficulties brought on by change and use policy and consensus to manage the anxiety. The Republicans represented Harris’s positions as promoting unconstrained change— progressivism run amok. It is a tactic that has become GOP boilerplate. The notion that the Democratic campaign was a leftist overreach avoids the intent of the Republican Party offensive. They had to hide their ineffectiveness while they held national office in Trump's first term marked by a do-nothing Congress and bungling of the COVID pandemic. They try to induce a collective amnesia concerning the years of failed politics under George W. Bush that began with a botched intelligence opportunity to stop the 9/11 attacks followed by another intelligence failure leading to the ill-fated Iraqi War. Bush's term ended with a financial crisis that paved the way for the Obama presidency, which was as much a repudiation of the neo-con policies of W’s presidency and the boneheaded failures to protect our nation and avoid unnecessary conflict.
“The economy, stupid”, was in another remarkable recovery from a pandemic seriously mishandled by the other guy in the race. As for the social issues cited by some as responsible for Harris’s undoing, when polled for broad voter appeal, Democratic positions on the social issues of the day polled well with a majority of registered voters. The Republicans have become adept at defining the Democrats’ stance on issues as too far left. In a playbook of dirty tricks stolen from the past, Republicans had done to “progressive” what it had done with the word “liberal” making it an expletive in the minds of voters. “Owning the libs” has become shorthand for resisting change and an excuse to reward their billionaire backers. Their attacks breed contempt for educational attainment, coastal culture, and diversity they conflate as elitism. Meanwhile, the party panders to the poor and under-educated that their policies ignore.
A more timely reaction to describe the GOP's myopic stance on issues is evident in Trump’s cabinet choices. Their positions on medical and scientific issues might best be described as hooey. “It’s the data, stupid,” is a better representation of what the public should be concerned about going forward. Democrats, for their part, may have overestimated the voters’ concern on some issues. Polling also indicated that while Democrats focused on social issues, only 25% of registered voters polled thought these were more important than the issues promoted by Trump. According to YouGov.com social issues were only fifth in importance among voters. Republican ads meanwhile, focused on a position on transgender treatment for imprisoned criminals while Harris was Attorney General of California. The ads were devastating among male voters, especially young Hispanics and blacks. The actual policy was a Trump-era policy signed by Trump while he was president, instead the Harris campaign responded meekly to the ad— perhaps not wanting to offend the tiny constituency the ad attacked. The Democratic response to the ad is typical of campaign strategies that lose sight of the larger picture. While social issues were listed as fifth in importance— transgender healthcare was deemed important by only 5% of those polled— dead last of the issues polled. By dredging up Harris’ response to a related health issue involving transgender rights for prisoners, Republicans found an “issue” that spoke to a group of voters who otherwise might have voted for Harris. The impact was similar to the Willie Horton ad used against Michael Dukakis and swift boat attacks that bedeviled the John Kerry campaign.
The Republican strategy works best when aided by the Electoral College which values real estate over actual human voters. Even though Donald Trump in this case bested Harris in both, he captured a plurality but did not receive 50% of the vote. For Trump, however, this mini-date didn't deter him from declaring it a mandate, just as he did in 2016 when Hillary won the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes. In both cases, the EC victory totals were far out of line with the popular vote. In both cases, however, the Democratic loss came with “parting gifts.” The GOP would win both houses of Congress to cement their “mandate.”
Some candidates represent a special political class with gifts of persuasion beyond the ordinary party’s consensus favorite. Candidates like Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama have been recognized as generational talents. Their victories depended far more on personal skills than their party's ability to build coalitions among its base. Both parties are hesitant to recognize candidates who are once-in-a-generation talents because they are usually outsiders or party regulars who challenge the party order. Trump faced the opposition of more than 20 party regulars as he steamrolled to victory in the 2016 primaries. Obama had to overcome Hillary’s status as an obvious choice in 2008 based on her longstanding work as a party regular with serious chops as a hardworking and effective Senator. In 2016, she was again anointed because she had “waited her turn” serving as Obama’s Secretary of State. Her advantages in knowledge and experience mattered little in a race that again was tarred with charges of misogyny.
Trump has no problem accepting help from bigots or foreign actors bent on destroying America. Many Republicans had hoped his “gifts” would stop giving so they could get their party back. Fat chance. Trump has highjacked the party apparatus and a generation of Luddites who are resistant to technology and science and relish disruption of the common order. These are folks who idolize Trump because he promises to tear things down. Like the proverbial bull in a china closet, he relishes leaving shards of a broken democracy whose Constitution and traditions no longer serve his need for unbridled power.
Courage
Democrats will need the talents of another generational candidate to overcome the damage done to our democratic institutions by Republicans under Trump. Where is that next generational talent that can repair the broken pieces? Using Reagan and Obama as examples of candidates with generational skills, both were great orators. Both had a stable of speechwriters that could embellish their natural talent as communicators. They used soaring rhetoric and a familiar homespun style to convince the nation that they understood their concerns and hopes for the future. More importantly, they spoke in clear terms about their vision of America. In many respects, Bill Clinton used his plainspoken manner to address the aspirations of the working class, many unaware of his status as an Ivy Leaguer and Rhodes scholar. And of course, FDR virtually invented the form as his fireside chats soothed and inspired his radio listeners. It was what separated them from others who won the office. This is not where Trump shines. Instead of mics, he uses dog whistles. Instead of reasoned argument, he mesmerizes his listeners with word salads.
Looking at the current political landscape, few in the Democratic Party appear to have the chops to become a “generational” talent. Pete Buttigieg and AOC have skills, but are they transcendent? Only time will tell. Wes Moore also has a compelling backstory and is building a resume as a governor that may be appealing enough to energize opposition to a post-Trump MAGA. Are Andy Beshear, Josh Shapiro, or Gavin Newsome ready? They sure have “the look” and are two-time governors. So, maybe,
There is more to generational status than simply the ability to speak and inspire. No one would argue that Joe Biden or Kamala Harris, with all her skills as a prosecutor and legislator, were little more than competent as communicators. It was not what they were known for. This is as difficult to write as it may be to read, but Donald Trump has a set of unique skills— as a con artist and liar— to mobilize a good portion of the nation to believe that he understood them and would fight for them. The problem has been that his appeal does not discriminate between the real concerns of many in the middle class and the prejudice of racists and anti-democratic agents. In many ways, Trump’s pessimistic and dour message met the moment for many in the working class on an emotional level. His talent was the underside of aspirational— its opposite— and proved to be just as compelling to enough voters to return him to office.
After the Eisenhower presidency, a dark and fear-filled time made even darker with the McCarthy era theatrics, the Democrats reinvigorated the nation with a young charismatic candidate who stole the convention and the country away from the old guard. JFK’s brief presidency had been romanticized when Jacqueline associated it with her husband’s love of the then-current Broadway version of Camelot. The moniker stuck and defined a brief time when the White House was filled with youth, children, a handsome couple, and an exciting vision for the future:
Don't let it be forgot
That once there was a spot
For one brief shining moment
That was known as
Camelot.— Lerner and Lowe musical, Don’t let it be forgot
Let us hope that these words aren’t the elegy of the shortened history of our nation’s shining moment.
Reagan’s Morning in America and Obama’s Cool Hip also defined a presidential term for Americans as noteworthy. Trump’s MAGA is an antidote to regular order and resonates with his followers for different reasons. His worldview is without vision and intentionally rudderless. The constitutional checks and balances designed to guard against irrational leadership are in the crosshairs of the second Trump term. His mantra, the deconstruction of the ‘Deep State’, borrowed from Steve Bannon, transposes his aggrieved victimhood into a way to repurpose anger to create political hay. He is, in effect, engaging with the enemy within himself.
The foundational American story is one of self-reliance and independence-- a nation of rugged individualists-- has morphed under MAGA into a mewling crowd of unappreciative and victimized dupes. The conditions of their status in the world are always the fault of others. Whatever comforts they enjoyed happened despite government indifference to their suffering. Trump was their avatar who knew how they felt and could channel their anger. This was the jaded premise that absolved personal responsibility and accountability and replaced those with resentment-- in keeping with Trump’s personal MO.
To be sure, the traits exemplified by the MAGA culture and used in the Republican campaign strategy as advertisements, rally themes, and social media campaigns were all magnified by the attempt on Trump’s life early in the campaign. It made victimhood visceral and present even as it described a mentality associated with psychological illness:
It’s hard to say if victim mentality is a symptom or a personality trait, as more research is still needed.
One 2020 study suggests that the victim mentality may be a personality trait, dubbed the “Tendency for Interpersonal Victimhood (TIV).” In this case, it spans multiple types of relationships and includes four patterns:
a desire for recognition as a victim
feelings of moral superiority
limited empathy for others
frequent rumination
— Psychcentral, “What Are the Signs of a Victim Mentality?” by Hilary I. Lebow
Democrats will have to deal with the psychological as well as political effects of the Trump campaigns well after he is gone. A generation of voters and potential candidates at all levels ascribe to the doctrine of victimhood and irresponsibility because governing is hard and serious work. It is far easier to choose not to govern— to tear down rather than build.
FDR had his cabinet, LBJ an activist court, but the current Congress and the Court have been problematic. Just imagine the impact Biden’s agenda would have had if when the Democrats held the Senate they had ended the filibuster. The tradition-bound leadership and members who preferred established order created an impediment to enacting real impactful legislation. In an act of political cowardice and institutional arrogance, the Democratic leadership in the Senate provided cover in the 2024 election by allowing the GOP to attribute the perception of a “do nothing” Congress to both parties and the subsequent gridlock could be laid at the feet of the Biden administration.
While Buttigieg, AOC, and Wes Moore are potentially formidable talents in the Democratic stable, others could arise if the party gives them an opportunity. Generational talent generally has to break down doors to reach power. Gavin Newsome has the chops but can he survive the label of “coastal elite” that Republicans have tarred him with? Others may be serving in state legislatures and city halls. The next election will not feature an aging baby boomer at the top of the ticket and the party has to prepare the way for new leadership. Kamala has a place in the party but she should not head the ticket in 2028. I am still stuck on gender and race as being primarily to blame for the “bro-culture” rejection but basic party processes doomed her effort as well.
If Donald Trump was indeed the Republican version of political talent, it is less generational than pathological. The forever victim has had his revenge. Since he could not muster a bit of respect he has settled, in equal shares, for adulation from his followers and disdain from his enemies.
Fear is the glue that binds them both— it is the one thing that history will record and historians will write about our time. FDR once spoke of fear and its potential to divide. But the context of the newly elected president’s inaugural is essential in understanding how well he understood the way forward:
This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.
— Franklin D. Roosevelt, Inaugural Address, March 4, 1933
‘Leadership of frankness and vigor’ seems like code for a collective effort to match a leader, the people, and their moment. Courage is essential in the face of adversity.
In the MAGA world, courage is the one thing they have to fear most.