Today comes an entertaining conversation among Joe Trippi, Frank Bruni, and our own Deval Patrick entitled Enough Trump Bashing, Democrats.
The theme is to keep your eyes on the prize with a positive message. Some good bits:
PATRICK: Those two convictions — fairness for the Dreamers and responsible governing — are more important than the midterms. Do right by those, and the midterms will take care of themselves.
On “left” versus “right,” “liberal” versus “conservative” — the labels are stale. The real dynamic in our politics today is insider versus outsider. That’s what needs to be fixed.
TRIPPI: A partisan from either party who is in a marginal district and lashes out at the other side is likely to hurt themselves with these voters. How is this candidate not going to add to the chaos and hostility in Washington? How is this candidate going to get anything done for me?
It has always been: The economy goes up, so does the president’s approval. Until now. That says to me that Trump and the G.O.P. are in much bigger trouble than even I think. And that trouble is Trump himself. He is not benefiting from an improving perception of the economy because of his personality, his hostility, his divisiveness.
The single biggest mistake — in a campaign that saw many of them — perhaps was the “deplorables.”
Lots more fun. And of course Bruni pops the question to Patrick: you in for 2020?
Christopher says
NO! Dems MUST make this year all about Trump and Trumpism. The very notion of constitutional governance is slipping away. The checks and balances that were supposed to come from the different electoral mandates of the various branches have yielded to partisan loyalty above all else. Aside from, or rather in addition too, policy preferences our message needs to be make government great again.
JimC says
I hear you, but Trump takes up so much oxygen that I tend to agree with the speakers (as quoted anyway). We need to use the remaining air to say how we’d be different.
doubleman says
Ugh, Patrick.
This is what you lead with on your values?
“We believe in an open, market-based economy bound by those values, an education system that supports and sustains those values, a robust foreign policy that promotes those values.”
Hardest of passes.
“For example, we want every man, woman and child to have access to quality, affordable health care. ”
NO. We want every man, woman and child to HAVE quality health care. Take your access and shove it.
He claims that the division in the party is about the means. It ain’t. It is very much about the ends, and his view of the ends has to go.
If we follow these recommendations we’ll continue to embrace the very bad and very dumb idea of things like balanced budgets and “bipartisanship.” This stuff gets people killed.
carl_offner says
I absolutely agree with this. For as long as I can remember now, a huge segment — probably a majority — of the Democratic party has been acting as competent middle managers. No one votes for middle managers. And by and large, people don’t even like middle managers.
I went to New Hampshire 4 times to work for Hillary Clinton. Each time I remember a pep talk by the organizer there who said that he was supporting HIllary because she was the “most qualified”. I felt at the time that was a terrible position to take, and I still do.
We don’t elect bureaucrats or managers. We elect political leaders. There’s a real difference.
Christopher says
I think we can have both. I don’t regret for a second supporting HRC in large part because she was the most qualified, but leadership skills are part of what makes one qualified. My surprise at Deval Patrick is he seems to be walking back his previous calls to grow a backbone.
petr says
First, off, I think you are painting the politician with your disdain for ‘middle managers’ and skewing the debate towards what you think about ‘middle managers’ and not what you think about politicians. This is unfair.
The term ‘middle managers’ aside, somebody has to actually be able to do the actual job: Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, would meet, face to face and eye to eye with Barack Obama one day and then fly to Russia and meet face to face and eye to eye with Vladimir Putin the next. and on and on. And by all accounts she did a fantastic job (Barack Obama praised her and Vladimir Putin hates her) Can you imagine Donald Trump doing anything at all like that?
Behind the stupid tweets and the chaos and the ridiculously open racism and sexism is one simple fact: Donald Trump simply CANNOT. DO. THE. JOB. He lacks the qualifications to even understand the fact that he can’t do it. The GOP is taking advantage of this one simple fact to RAPE everything they can get their hands on.
But, I guess, as long as he’s not a ‘middle manager’ his distinct lack of qualifications being, somehow, the responsibility of the Democrats…
Trickle up says
We are not going to get a middle manager as nominee. We are going to get another charismatic unknown centrist.
I am not enthusiastic about this, but of course hope that the charismatic unknown centrist prevails over the demonstrably worse alternative.
Which quite frankly is not a slam dunk.
carl_offner says
Maybe. I first started noticing the middle manager talk when Dukakis ran for president. (And by the way, I had worked hard for him.) Remember his slogan? It was “We can do better.” Now Dukakis was in fact very competent. But it struck me at the time that his slogan, and the whole positioning of his campaign was that of a middle manager, not a person with vision and public values. He simply didn’t inspire people. He could have. But he didn’t.
petr says
As much as you distrust what you call ‘middle manager’ (and I still think you are unfair in its use, here…) I distrust ‘inspiration.’ Fear is a specie of ‘inspiration.’ As well, lies and calumny can ‘inspire’ as much, if not more, than righteousness and truth can… the last 5 Republican presidents have spent their collective administrations proving as much, over and over and over, again.
Hillary Clinton, as well as John Kerry, Al Gore and, yes, Mike Dukakis all ran on nose-to-grindstone, day-in, day-out, competence. James Carter, too. If that doesn’t merit an electoral victory, maybe it’s the electorate and not the candidates who are at fault here… They all lost to a bumbling cadre of increasingly more ridiculous idjits. But, somehow, that’s the fault of the Democrats….
Trickle up says
Wonkish, technocratic competence seems to play well for Mass. gubernatorial races (see, for instance, Mr. Fixit.) Not so much nationally, and I share some of Petr’s misgivings about that.
But I think we do not appreciate the extent to which this mindset comes across as arbitrary and elitist, and provokes reaction. We saw it after Dukakis I as well.
(Don’t get me wrong: I am glad he came back and think he was a terrific governor, at least until he caught the white house bug.)
This is the political manifestation of one of the central problems of modern life. Things really do require expertise. Modern life is complicated. But those who practice the art of politics need to close the loop with the people, or else–you know what?–it really is elitism.
Mostly apart from that: I feel betrayed by technocrats who deploy charismatic, hopey-changey rhetoric on the campaign trail, only to drop all pretense once it has served the purpose of gaining power.
The problems we face are so fundamental that we can’t technocrat our way out of them. We need real leaders that will take the case to the people again and again, mobilizing the grassroots to create lasting change.
jconway says
Excellent points Trickle Up.
I’m reminded of the Daniel Burnham quote: “Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men’s blood”.
Big plans are the bold, American platforms of change people can rally around. These are the things that HW Bush derided as “the vision thing” that get voters and bases mobilized to work on a candidates behalf. I am unlikely to vote for Sanders again, but he has a vision and it’s not just “fixing things” or 99 page plans to save coal country, but a real transformative plan to change America’s political
Life and it’s economic system forever. I think he’s still the man to beat in our primary and the younger candidates I would rather vote for have to come up with a similar vision.
Trump ran on a dark vision, but we can’t argue with the fact that it’s equally transformative and hopes to radically change our political and economic system forever. For the worse, the stakes are extremely high. Yet we won’t defeat Trumpism
with mild mannered competency. We need a vision for American greatness that is positive and inclusive enough to overshadow the American carnage.
JimC says
Good point. I think he means “access” in the right way, but you’re right, the word leaves too much wiggle room.
And this is everything:
“He claims that the division in the party is about the means. It ain’t. It is very much about the ends,”
As to whether his ends have to go, I don’t think we’ll ever resolve that.
Tangentially, he does sound like a candidate.
johntmay says
Patrick’s comments turn my stomach.
“We believe in an open, market-based economy bound by those values, an education system that supports and sustains those values, a robust foreign policy that promotes those values.”
This sort of statement is classic neoliberalsim. Do we really want to keep this up an lose the working class entirely? Besides, what the heck is an “open market……bound by values” – the cognitive dissonance is strong in this one.
“For example, we want every man, woman and child to have access to quality, affordable health care. ”
No. No. No.
We want health care as the right of all citizens. We do not want it provided by the ownership class to those in the working class that must purchase it at a cost marked up to further enrich the ownership class.
jconway says
I think Trippi makes an excellent point that we should run candidates in every district who can compete in that district. The litmus test around abortion, which we would never apply to single payer, is an excellent example of that. See my comment on the Roe v Wade thread to know how far I’ve evolved on the issue to be firmly on the 100% pro choice side, this isn’t about my own views. It’s recognizing that the Midwest needs to be retaken. At the House level, who cares? It’s not like it has any authority over Roe. If it means winning an additional 10-15 seats and replacing hardline conservatives with economic liberals, I’m for it.
jconway says
As for Patrick, all I’ll say is there was no better orator in our party. He was even a better speaker than Obama (granted I saw him in person and never got a chance to see the President live) . Unfortunately, he was a mediocre Governor at best. The DCF deaths, T winter fail, inability to pass anything past a supermajority of his own party are valid attacks in the general. While other progressives in our party are leading the Resistence, he’s leading a portfolio for Bain Capital. Sounds like he’s running, O’Malley would have a better shot.
petr says
I think the fact that you forgot about the global economic meltdown and Patrick’s helmsmanship through the entirety of it, is testament enough to refute the word ‘mediocre.’ Charlie Baker has an economy that is, objectively, several orders of magnitude better than what Patrick dealt with and and Baker has only managed to make people complain more and louder.
jconway says
Good thing our Democratic state legislative leaders and highest ranked elected Democratic executive are writing frackin campaign copy for the Baker re-election effort:
“Anyone who makes it to the final has their hands full,” Walsh tells MassLive’s Gin Dumcius. “I think it’s going to be a difficult race, I mean, particularly when you see the accomplishments he’s laid out of the last three and a half years as governor.
“He talked about what we were able to do together, unlike many other states where we see partisanship getting involved,” said House Speaker Robert DeLeo. Acting Senate President Harriette Chandler called it a “very uplifting speech,” adding, “There is no partisanship when we get things done.”
As Christopher pointed out, campaigning against the Democratic nominee for any given race can be grounds for expulsion from Democratic town and state committees. As ad hoc members, the Mayor of Boston, Acting President Chandler, and Speaker DeLeo should at least be censured for these remarks.
Our candidates for our nomination should pull no punches with attacking our legislature and reminding unenrolled voters that Baker and the Beacon Hill insiders are one in the same. Electing a progressive Democratic governor would be a far stronger check on bipartisan corporate governance.