FEBRUARY 8, 2020 – I watched much of yesterday evening’s “debate” among Democratic contenders for the White House. I was impressed and depressed—impressed by the general level of basic judgment, experience, and intelligence far in excess of Trump’s; depressed by the probability that no amount of judgment, experience, and intelligence is likely to overcome the impulsivity, lack of understanding, and raw stupidity that is manifest in today’s White House.
Tom Steyer came closest to pointing out the problem. In so many words, he said that everyone on the stage could agree on basic policy. The issue they must confront ahead of all others was who among them has the best shot at defeating Trump.
Steyer waved the starting flag, but all I heard in response was a slight, momentary vroom-vroom of the “debate” engines, each with transmission in neutral. The “debate” rolled on . . . “Next ‘debater’; next question.”
Every single “debater” claimed the “American people want [such and so].” Then each candidate asserted that he or she will wave the magic wand and provide the “[such and so]” and therefore he or she can defeat Trump and therefore he or she should be the nominee.
But none of the candidates told us how in the world s/he is going to unite the Democratic Party (apart from declaring, “I can work with other people. I got a bill passed with Republican votes”). None of the candidates confronted the fact that after the shameful sham of an impeachment trial in the Senate and Romney’s Ciceronian speech, Trump’s approval rating shot up to 49%—his highest since Inauguration Day—and 51% of the people polled approve the Republican Party. None of the Democrats addressed how s/he will confront what’s all but guaranteed: the biggest onslaught of misinformation, expertly executed by the Trump campaign, 4Chan, rightwing radio, Breitbart News, the Drudge Report, Russian trolls, and last but hardly least, FoxGoebbels—the official propaganda arm of the White House—and further propagated by FaceBook, thanks to its “free speech” policy of not blocking political ads containing intentionally stated falsehoods.
And of course, there’s the money. None of the “debaters” in New Hampshire told us how s/he and the party will raise a war-chest sufficient to counter the over-flowing coffers of the Trump campaign. (“Calling Mike Blomberg; calling Mike Blomberg”? Oops! He’s one of the Democratic candidates!)
Finally, for all their well-rehearsed lines about policy, none of the candidates gave us any concrete assurance that Election Day in November won’t be fraught with process exceptions or perceived exceptions—from technological glitches to outright funny business traceable to you know where.
All of which left me wondering and worrying. Is any of the candidates on yesterday evening’s “debate” stage up to the task? Is the Democratic party up to the task? Is the (partial) answer, “Blomberg’s (promised) billion”?
In any event, to win the race, the Democrats have got to get themselves onto the racetrack. So far, I’d say they’re spinning their wheels on the far side of town.
(Remember to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.)
© 2020 by Eric Nilsson
