My faculty pool may have lost the Powerball and I’m barely hanging on in my bracket, but I just won a more exciting lottery. I was able to successfully sign up for an April 6 Meet Pete event in Concord, NH. I knew that the candidate was becoming popular when the event closed right after I signed up for it.
For those who do not know, Pete Buttigieg is the 37 year old two term Mayor of South Bend, IN. A post industrial Midwestern city of just over 100,000 people which has seen a turnaround thanks to his leadership. He is also a veteran of the War in Afghanistan, a Rhodes Scholar, fluent in at least five languages (including Norwegian) and an openly gay, openly Christian husband and dog parent.
Pete is a solid progressive on all our big litmus tests. For a pathway to Medicare for All, for the Green New Deal, for an economy centered around working people instead of the wealthy.
So far, so good, so what? I think the biggest difference between Pete and the other candidates is that he is a progressive who recognizes Democrats have a bit of a hamburger problem and need to think outside the bun to win. One way he does that is by reclaiming faith, family, and freedom as progressive values.
What I like about Pete is that he is wonky and empathetic. That he has won two elections in a pretty conservative part of the country. That he has executive experience and military experience. That he speaks other languages and shows a curiosity about the world and foreign policy our President, and increasingly our party, do not always demonstrate.
I am very excited to Meet Pete. I am not quite ready to vote for him though. I want him to answer these questions first:
1) Why should we nominate another white male?
2) Can an openly gay candidate win a general election for president?
3) How can we be sure you wont be rolled by McConnell?
4) How do you go from governing South Bend to governing America?
5) Why you and not a bigger progressive name like Warren, Sanders, or Harris?
What questions would you like me to ask him?
SomervilleTom says
It’s a pleasure to hear from you again, James.
Christopher says
Welcome back – IMO BMG hasn’t been the same without you!
I think Mayor Pete did great at his recent CNN town hall and if I’m available when he gets a bit closer to the state line I’d be happy to go meet him. I really don’t think anyone should have to defend themselves demographically or that we should consider the Dem nomination permanently closed to white men, though unfortunately being gay is a deal breaker for many. (Then again, there’s a good chance such people weren’t voting for our nominee anyway.) I’d be interested in everyone’s answer to your #3, though if I were asked I’d be tempted to say make sure McConnell isn’t Majority Leader in the first place! (Polling even suggests he’ll be lucky to remain a Senator at all.)
fredrichlariccia says
Welcome back to the fight, James. This place hasn’t been the same without you.
pogo says
Look out for a older bald guy with a big camera and say hi (not completely positive I’ll be there. In the mean time, enjoy.
Also Andy Yang is in Concord that weekend.
SomervilleTom says
I loved the videos and appreciate you sharing them.
It’s refreshing to see and hear inspiration coming from the center.
SomervilleTom says
I’m a hairsbreadth away from cancelling my Globe subscription, by the way. The drumbeat of stories against the T, columns against the wealth tax, the distortions about Mr. Kraft, and so on are current examples of what troubled me before. That’s besides the fact that there are too many “human interest” and sports stories for my taste. To wit — does opening day need a picture on the front page? Do people really care about weed for their pets?
Not worth a whole thread, just an update while we’re talking about exciting 2020 candidates. On page 2 of today’s paper, I see exactly one story with substance (“Mueller report more than 300 pages, AG tells top Democrat”). The rest of the page is just filler. Surely the story on Mr. Bernhardt’s apparent corruption belongs on page 1 or 2, instead of buried on page A6. That sort of thing.
pogo says
Sorry i never completely engaged your when you wrote more about your feelings about the Globe. My only “defense” is they are no worse than any other major news outlet. Yes, they have weaknesses, but they are in our back yard and if we want stories like Boston Valedictorians falling out of success while suburban valedictorians continue with their success, we have to support them.
And if you really want to know what I feel about the pathetic mainstream media, spend a few bucks and watch this film (or see it in Boston on Friday May 3rd)
SomervilleTom says
Well, I don’t know about “worse” or “better” in any absolute sense. It may simply be that the biases of the Times and Post are better aligned with mine than those of the Globe.
What I do know is that I subscribe to and read the online editions of the Washington Post and New York Times. The Globe is more than twice as expensive as each, has a fraction of the substantive content, and presents WSJ-style bias disguised as “liberal”, “moderate”, or “centrist”. At $30/month, it’s just not worth it for the tiny amount of actual relevant local news that it delivers. If I want the WSJ perspective, I’ll buy the WSJ.
I’ve pretty much given up on Boston print media. I get what I can from Mass Live, Google news feeds, and word-of-mouth. At this point, I think some new source will be better than expecting the Globe (or the Herald) to improve. In that scenario, supporting the Globe only makes it more difficult for its replacement to emerge.
The trailer looks cool, I’ll add it to my list.
pogo says
You all can save yourself a trip if you’re available this Wednesday (the 3rd) at 4pm. Mayor Pete will be speaking at: Blackman Auditorium, Ell Hall. 342 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA
daves says
How does his professed Christian faith set him apart? Almost every candidate in my memory has made some claim about faith, and none of them were non-Christians. What is his solution to the hamburger problem?
petr says
Explicitly Christian and explicitly homosexual is asking for a specific, and very contentious debate: It’s a wedge issue; how can anti-homosexuality be a specific Christian issue if there is a very prominent homosexual espousing Christian ideals?
What, pray tell, is the ‘hamburger problem’… ?
SomervilleTom says
It was linked to in the threadstarter:
I find the metaphor arrogant and offensive, but I’m tired of arguing about it. About half of the electorate are deplorables who love the lies, racism, bigotry, and misogyny of Mr. Trump and the Trumpists. I’ve already spent more than enough of my 66 years on this earth keeping silent when these people start spewing their reprehensible garbage.
On the other hand, I’m not running for public office and my impatience about such matters is a pretty good indication that I’m not well-suited to do so.
Christopher says
That link caricatures liberals. I can’t think of any candidate who has tried to tell us we can’t eat hamburgers.
jconway says
Just yesterday the editor of this blog tweeted that you will not miss beef in your hamburger. I think whenever liberals sound like Helen Lovejoy or the church lady, they lose the conversation. This is why Pete is refreshing since he is a very visible gay leader going to church and appreciate Chik Fil A chicken.
Even the typically ‘both sides’ David Brooks recognizes that the same bold progressive proposals coming out of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders mouth sound a lot more like common sense coming from Pete.
We absolutely have a voter turnout problem that is directly caused by racist voter suppression tactics and foreign interference from Russia. We are already playing on an unfair playing field that privileges rural voters and whiter voters in the industrialized Midwest over more diverse population centers. By the way, Pete is one of the few candidates talking about ending those undemocratic structures.
He is also the only one I see so far who recognizes that we have to win within the system we have now. One that privileges white midwestern voters over everybody else. We can either call them deplorable and pray we can endure another four years of Trump, or we can win enough of them back to flip those states and get a Democratic President who will reform the Supreme Court, kill the filibuster, and kill the electoral college. The choice is ours.
SomervilleTom says
Those voters who still support Mr. Trump and the Trumpists today ARE deplorable, whether or not we admit it. I think that drowning them out with new Democratic voters is easier and more effective than trying to change those votes.
The issue with winning back those voters remains that in order to accomplish that, we will end up with a “Democratic” President who will make none of the changes you enumerate and that we so desperately need.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but I note that Mr. Manchin — who I suggest exemplifies the “Democrats” that we’ll get from your proposal — joined the GOP in supporting Mr. Kavanaugh. He supports the border wall bigotry. He supports our aid to the Saudis. He voted to support the Scott Pruitt nomination. He has an “A+” rating from the NRA. He opposed the DREAM act.
I suggest that we don’t need more Democrats like Joe Manchin. The strategy I like best (and I think supporting Mr. Buttigieg exemplifies this) is to recruit two new voters who are committed to our vision, values, and priorities for every deplorable Trumpist voter — especially in the rural white midwest.
jconway says
Pete does a great job of making important connections. He has identified the problem as a broken democracy, broken capitalism, and broken social contract that has led to a rise in radicalism and a decline in democratic values across the West. The voters who stayed home or wanted to burn the house down, whether for Trump or for a third party, have to be convinced Democrats are better.
The way out is to fix our democracy. It is broken by the Electoral College, by Russian bots, by Fox News, by Citizens United, and by a political system held capture to special interests. One where 90% of Republicans want background checks but their leaders in Congress are culled by the NRA. One where 80% of the public want some kind of public option but our health policy is captured by the insurance industry.
I really think this framing could be a powerful way to win back former Obama voters and turn out new voters entirely. I think its a useful framing for any nominee, even if Pete ultimately falls short of winning, he has changed this conversation for the better.
Back to my thread starter, what questions should I ask him? I have narrowed down mine to a top 3.
1. What is your strategy to win the nomination and the general election?
II. How can you govern if you do when so many of these roadblocks you identify are structural ones?
III. How will you deliver change that a better known candidate cannot?
SomervilleTom says
“How do you move disaffected voters past their biases and prejudices so that they will support you and your vision?”
jconway says
That’s a great question Tom, it crystallizes a lot of what I want to ask in a succinct way.
centralmassdad says
I hadn’t heard that term before, and that article is a little over the top.
Maybe a different way to put it is that the D nomination has the potential to become a wokeness contest, focused more on symbolic matters than policy matters.
Or, put another way, I don’t see that the rift among Democrats in 2016 has gotten any better, and I don’t see anyone, yet, that seems likely to bridge it.
bob-gardner says
Phillip Weiss, over at Mondoweiss, was pretty dismissive of Buttigieg . https://mondoweiss.net/2019/04/slaughter-buttigieg-responses/ I have to say, reading Weiss’s post that I have to agree with him. There might be a question about Gaza you could ask Buttigieg.
bob-gardner says
What is the eviction rate in South Bend compcompared to the national average?
SomervilleTom says
More importantly, what is Mr. Buttigieg doing or attempting to do in connection with that rate?
Christopher says
Do you mean evictions of tenants from their apartments? If so, what can the Mayor do about it (or should he)? Seems to me if you don’t fulfill the terms of the lease you might get evicted – pretty simple.
SomervilleTom says
It’s much different than that.
I think he means tenants who are forced to leave because their landlords won’t renew their leases at rents the tenants can afford, or because their landlords won’t renew their lease at any rent.
I did some research, and South Bend has a very high eviction rate.:
It appears to me that Mr. Buttigieg has taken a number of steps to address that. It also appears that the various local organizations in South Bend (including the city council) are blocking those attempts.
Christopher says
Thank you. I guess I took eviction to mean getting thrown out prematurely as opposed to not having your lease renewed – kind of like at your job the difference between being fired for cause and not having your contract renewed at the regular interval.
SomervilleTom says
The piece I linked to describes a third scenario. In South Bend, it appears that property owners are refusing to maintain or repair damaged properties, and the resulting burden falls on the tenants:
bob-gardner says
I never announce what I would do if I were in some government official’s shoes, but in this case I will make an exception. If I were mayor of a city the size of South Bend there are plenty of things I could do, from making a public example of some of the worst or biggest landlords, to announcing a moratorium on evictions, to asking for, or threatening to get legislation passed, to any number of other things.
Of course, if the question is rephrased to, “how can I reduce evictions without stepping on anyone’s toes, the list of solutions is quite a bit shorter.
In a city the size of South Bend, achieving some kind of positive result shouldn’t be that difficult. Certainly it would be less daunting than a complete revamp of our electoral politics and the total reform of the Supreme Court, which would require amending the Constitution.
The fact that Pete hasn’t been able to bring down the eviction rate suggests either a low level of political skill, or a low level of interest in the people getting evicted. I’m not sure which is more disqualifying.
I’m waiting, (still) for JConway to get back to us on what question he asked, and how the candidate responded.
SomervilleTom says
I wonder if you might share one or two examples of officials (mayor, governor whatever) who exemplify what you seek.
In my rephrasing, I made no reference to stepping on toes. I do wonder how familiar you are with South Bend and its government. Are you sure that the actions you request are available to Mr. Buttigieg? Are you sure he hasn’t done them?
I’m sincerely interested in an example of a candidate who passes the criteria you offer.
bob-gardner says
I can’t think of anyone who doesn’t meet my criterea. South Bend has about 100,000 residents. Any Mayor who can’t make a dent in the eviction rate in a city that size, who then thinks he has the skill to pass multiple amendments to the Constitution is acting more like a 7 year old than a 37 year old.
Here’s a link. https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/03/all-about-pete
It’s worth a read.
SomervilleTom says
I appreciate the link, I actually skimmed it earlier and read it more carefully after your comment.
Regarding the eviction rate, I hear two competing narratives:
1. Too many property owners are doing nothing about run-down properties, so that tenants are unable to stay in these run-down properties
2. Too many run-down properties are in minority neighborhoods, and forcing owners to repair them or have them torn down only spurs gentrification
What do you think a mayor should do about run-down properties? It seems to me that gentrification is the inevitable result of repairing run-down properties — am I mistaken about that?
If the high eviction rate is a result of the decrepit state of residential housing, then how is that problem solved without creating gentrification?
bob-gardner says
I wouldn’t be so quick to link the lack of repairs to the high eviction rate. There may be a connection, but it’s not clear to me that code enforcement necessarily affects the eviction rate one way or another. I also doubt that code enforcement alone is a major factor in bringing on gentrification.
Making evictions tougher, legally and politically might be the best way of bringing down the eviction rate. It’s certainly the most direct way.
I doubt that a city program of demolition accomplishes much of anything. It does show that the people who argue that increasing the housing supply doesn’t necessarily mean that people will be able to afford a secure place to live.
SomervilleTom says
BTW, I have no particular attachment to Mr. Buttigieg. He is one of many candidates entering what is shaping up to be a rich roster of primary choices.
Christopher says
How in the world is that even legal? OF COURSE it is the landlord’s responsibility to keep up with repairs and code issues, and I assume the lease itself affirms such.
SomervilleTom says
Of course it’s illegal.
Boston is chock-full of similarly illegal apartments. Some of those property owners will tell you that they believe they are doing a public service by not doing the repairs and therefore keeping the rents low.
The provisions of a lease and of the law are meaningful only when they can be and are enforced. For far too many working-class and minority tenants, that makes them irrelevant.
Christopher says
I’m a tenant of a managed apartment and once was a tenant of a private landlord. If I thought they were in breach of the lease and could not work it out I would be on the horn with the AG pronto – seems pretty straightforward.
SomervilleTom says
Your white privilege is speaking again.
I think you’d find that the AG was not very interested unless the landlord was doing something to hundreds or thousands of people. I suspect you’d be told to bring it to small claims court or hire and attorney.
I fear you don’t appreciate the barriers that make those steps so much more difficult for minorities. You are not fearful of state officials. You are not nearly as likely to be blacklisted for complaining. You are far more likely to be able to afford an attorney to pursue your case.
Even with all that, I fear you underestimate just how bad the situation is in Boston.
bob-gardner says
So,what question did you ask? What answer did you get?