Several recent news stories about speaches by Pete Buttigieg have driven home to me that Buttigieg really does provide a good example of key differences between Republicans and Democrats. These include:
Domestically, Democrats Want to Govern and Republicans Don’t
A recent piece in WaPo entitled “At Least A New President Could Care About Governing” makes this point clear:
It’s no secret that Democrats, who favor an involved public sector, care about its upkeep and functionality. Republicans’ limited government mantra has in recent years turned into hostility to government, facts and experts. Buttigieg showed how invested he is in actually managing the executive branch.
He spoke about “subnational” diplomacy (such as gathering cities to make their own commitments toward reducing our carbon output) and about updating foreign policy institutions — “intelligence, communications, diplomatic and development” operations. He seemed to take delight in getting into the weeds of military budgeting, arguing that how we spend is as important as how much we spend, especially at a time when we need to direct funds to new threats such as cyberterrorism. On veterans, he argued for mental-health services to be upgraded in Veterans Affairs and for cooperation with state and local leaders to reintegrate veterans into society. Speaking about the intelligence community, he thanked it for safeguarding our elections — something the current president would never do.
….
This address was truly the polar opposite of Trump’s “I alone can fix it” attitude and his gleeful ignorance about what government does, let alone how it does it. Maybe it was Buttigieg’s military training or his experience in McKinsey analyzing business systems, or maybe running a city really does make one detail-oriented. In any case, it was refreshing to hear someone who wants to make what he would be in charge of — the executive branch — do its job better. It shows that it’s not all about him, that he wants to be a good steward of taxpayer dollars and that results, not photo ops, are what drive him. Perhaps we’ll get a president who would hire the best people.
On Foreign Policy, Democrats Want to Seriously Engage With the World and Republicans Don’t
This point was made by an article in The Nation entitled “Pete Buttigieg’s Comprehensive Foreign Policy Vision”:
The topic of his speech at Indiana was serious: America and the World: National Security for a New Era. …. “This,” said a middle-aged man seated in front of me, “is the opposite of of a Trump rally.”
And so it was. In terms of comportment, intellect, and substance, Mayor Pete and President Trump are about as far apart as you can get. ….. all in all, the mayor laid out a comprehensive foreign-policy vision that makes clear where he stands on many of the most contentious and, yes, serious, foreign-policy issues facing the country today.
It’s a great article which discussed a wide array of Mayor Pete’s foreign policy positions. His positions are a different topic for a different diary, but if you want to know them I suggest you read it. The point is that Buttigieg, like Democrats in general, address foreign policy seriously with global goals in mind. We are not “America first” isolationists concerned only with the business environment who are reactive. WaPo concurs that Buttigieg deserved praise for giving a foreign policy address that was detailed, serious, and comprehensive in scope. This is the best traditions of the Democratic Party.
Pete Buttigieg is clearly going to be part of the future of our party. Already, more democratic voters think he is able to beat Donald Trump than think Elzabeth Warren can do so. There’s a long road to go in this primary, and Pete definitely is one of four or five serious candidates, but even if he does not win the big prize — he’s improving the Democratic brand.