[Note to readers: I started this blog not for political comments but for reporting social science, especially American social history. But I will scratch the itch… and then return to “regular programming.”]
Premise: Removing Trump is America’s number one priority, because his re-election would make us fall further behind in addressing priorities number two through n–slowing climate change, tamping down war, moderating inequality, repairing the infrastructure, learning to live with growing diversity, and more.
Strategies: They largely boil down to hard-nosed pragmatics: We on the left should not shoot ourselves in the foot.
1. The fact that Trump is crooked, creepy, and crazy is not enough to defeat him. Trump’s moral putrescence is evident to everyone who doesn’t wear a MAGA hat–and to many of those who do. More than four in ten American voters will choose him anyway, because he is the incumbent in economic good times and, critically, because he is the Republican leader in a highly polarized era; for Republicans, that suffices. (Democrats are similarly polarized.)
Corollary: Broad impeachment efforts would backfire. His high crimes and misdemeanors–as well as his low crimes–are in plain sight; the Senate would acquit him anyway. A House vote for impeachment is unlikely to bring out many more Democrats on election day, but would motivate many of the few ambivalent Republicans–mainly, suburban women–to turn out.(What about the Nixon analogy? See note [1].)
2. Identity politics on the ground; kitchen-table politics on the air. Should the Democratic party focus on mobilizing the base (especially minorities and youth) or appeal to the perhaps two to five percent of whites, aged forty or older, who could be swing voters? Answer: Do both, but differently.
On the ground: Although the almost always promised up swell in minority and youth voter turnout has almost always failed to appear,[2] efforts to register and turn out these groups are critical (and were often missed in the 2016 Clinton campaign). Appeals to identity and group solidarity are important here, when done locally, door-to-door, personally.
On the air: In speeches, the party platform, ads, and debates (if any), the Democratic candidate should reach for the middle. One message to send is that Trump has failed to deliver on his promises, not on curbing Wall Street, Big Pharma, Chinese competition, nor undocumented immigration (much less building a wall paid for by Mexico), not on rebuilding infrastructure, nor draining “the swamp.” The other message is that Democrats are focused on kitchen-table, water-cooler issues: secure, affordable, and optional health care; raising middle-class wages; lowering college costs; tax fairness; order at the border; etc.
A further implication is that promises to abolish private health insurance, decriminalize illegal border-crossing, and pay slavery reparations–morally just as they may be–definitely undermine goal #1, removing Trump. However many of the always-promised-but-rarely-delivered minority and youth voters these positions may mobilize, they alienate many of the always-voting middle-of-road voters. (Harris, Sanders, and Warren may have already dealt themselves fatal blows for the general election.)
3. “Vote blue, no matter who.” In 2016, if voters for Jill Stein (Green Party) had voted instead for Clinton, then Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin would have gone blue and Donald Trump would never have been President. In 2000, if Ralph Nader (Green Party) voters had voted for Al Gore, then Florida and New Hampshire would have gone blue and George W. Bush would not have been president. Left-wing pietism has repeatedly injured the left–and the people whom the left claims to fight for.
Now back to regular programming.
NOTES——————
[1] Some argue that the Nixon precedent shows how impeachment hearings can move public opinion (and Republican senators). However, the Nixon hearings revealed previously unknown dirty deeds, such as his conspiring on a cover-up–captured on audio tapes–and backroom conniving–reported by turncoat witnesses like John Dean. These revelations shocked the nation. What might we learn about Trump that would shock the nation? Witness tampering, sexual predation, money laundering, managerial incompetence, overt racism, tax cheating, embracing the Russians, self-dealing in office, etc.? All well-known and by now discounted. In fact, can you imagine any plausible revelation about Trump that would now be shocking enough to move Mitt Romney, much less Lindsay Graham or Mitch McConnell, toward impeachment? Also, many of the procedural issues will end up in court. Trump, unlike Nixon, has four-and-a-half Supreme Court votes in his pocket.
[2] What about Obama? Yes, Obama produced a surge in African-American voters–but only in the two years that he was personally on the ballot and that surge did not come close to balancing out the votes he lost from white voters for the same reason, the color of his skin. Then, why did Obama win in 2008? The economy. The banks, Wall Street, and Americans’ housing were in crisis; that’s why Obama won. (And that’s also why white voters who otherwise would have voted against a black candidate voted for Obama. As social psychologist Tom Pettigrew once pointed out, even racists worry about other things besides race.)
