We Democrats are about to be inundated with a huge slate of candidates for our 2020 POTUS nominee. Much is riding on our choices: Defeating Trump (or whomever), winning the White House and having coattails that help us get a Democratic Congress (both chambers!), progressive policies, the future of the judiciary, of the planet, etc. I want to suggest that as we examine the candidates, listen to debates and speeches, and research into their backgrounds, that we look not only for exciting speakers and charismatic personalities (important though that is), nor only at “electability” (whatever that means!), but that we look for life experiences beyond the typical cookie cutter mold of many politicians. One of the most exciting things about our Mid-term Blue Tsunami was that our candidates came from all walks of life. That included many of the winners (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley, Sharice Davids, Lucy McBath) and of those who fell short (Amy McGrath, Randy Bryce, Andrew Gillum, Beto O’Rourke, Stacy Abrams). They didn’t all have the same curriculum vitae or resume. That made them more able to connect to ordinary people.
Now, I am not saying that we should look for a nominee who has zero experience in government like Trump did. The GOP experiment with that is an ongoing disaster. But one of the things that caught voters’ attentions about Trump in 2016 was “he’s different.” I think he was “different” in a horrible way that screamed, “KEEP THIS IMMORAL FOOL AS FAR FROM POWER AS POSSIBLE!” but, with Russian help, enough people in just the right states disagreed to elect him. No, we need someone who understands government, but we don’t need a cookie cutter nominee. When we’ve nominated someone from a “typical” political background (Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry), they’ve lost. Not all aspects of Hillary’s resume were at all typical (especially being the first woman nominee of a major party), but she’d been in public life long enough to enable the propaganda about her as an elite, out-of-touch, “typical pol” to work.
Being an academic, I look first at a candidate’s educational background, both for achievement and for some variety. To be frank, Obama’s educational profile (Occidental College transferring for a B.A. in poli-sci at Columbia; Harvard Law) to be impressive in accomplishment (tough schools all), but to be fairly uninteresting from the perspective of "non-cookie cutter.” WAY too many of our POTUSes have had an Ivy League education, especially Harvard and Yale. (The height of ridiculousness in this regard was 2004 when both Bush and Kerry were Yalies who were both part of the exclusive “Skull and Bones” Secret Society!) The REST of Obama’s life experience (interracial parents, birth in Hawai’i, early childhood in Indonesia, blended family, etc.) and his experiences at Ivy League institutions as an African-American was atypical enough to make up for that. It made him less like the “typical pol” and more likely to be able to connect with the increasingly diverse nation the USA is becoming. His decision to become a community organizer in Chicago, working with poor people, was one of my main early reasons for liking him. Frankly, I’d have liked him more if he’d turned down Harvard Law and chosen law school at UChicago or Loyola or Northwestern so that he could continue his community organizing work while a law student—and not just during summer internships.
Again, I don’t want us to embrace novelty for its own sake, nor to ignore political experience, but I do want us to look for breadth of experience. Not every candidate needs to have come from poverty like Bill Clinton or Dennis Kucinich or John Edwards. After all some of our greatest POTUS champions of the poor (e.g., FDR, JFK) themselves came from very elite, privileged backgrounds. But I want a nominee whose experience includes something that allows them to have empathy with the poor, the suffering, the oppressed, or the outcast. If someone has only known privilege in every area of life, why should we expect them to be able to connect to ordinary citizens?
I’m also looking for experiences of public service and/or sacrifice—evidence that the candidate doesn’t see the world as a zero-sum competition and who places the common good above personal gain. In this way, Sen. Tammy Duckworth’s experience as a severely injured veteran of the Iraq War, who now is differently abled and mostly uses a wheelchair stands out. I’m not saying this early that she should be our nominee, but I do think her life story is a strong contrast to either Trump or Pence (or anyone the GOPers would substitute) and that this would be an asset. Paradoxically, her visible status as a wounded veteran could allow her to be less hawkish without being as vulnerable to the GOP warhawk drum beat of “Oh, the Dems are soft on terrorism, again!” She’s already told “Cadet Bone Spurs” not to dare to lecture her on how to support troops and veterans!
Joe Biden tops the list in popularity of those expected to run. He’s not my first choice, but it’s not hard to see why he is so popular (beyond name recognition). While his childhood was not as dirt poor as Bill Clinton’s, it was well below middle class and in a tough working class neighborhood in Scranton, PA. Biden’s education is outside the Ivy League (B.A., University of Delaware; J.D., Syracuse University) and he has admitted being, at best, an average student. his personal losses, early and recent, have given him empathy with the less fortunate. While he has had some goof ups in his career (Allowing Prof. Anita Hill to be so shamefully treated in the hearings for Clarence Thomas as exhibit A), he has striven to learn from and correct them (e.g,, sponsoring the Violence Against Women Act, championing marriage equality and LGBT rights more broadly). His famous “gaffes” actually endear him to many as a “straight talker,” which could be a huge asset vs. Trump.
These are merely 2 examples—the former drawn from among those not high in current polling and the latter topping the current polls before any formal announcements have begun. I’d like us to examine each of our candidates for such breadth of life experience and for a “non-cookie cutter” profile which allows the potential nominee to connect to a broad range of people in the country. That will be key to uniting a winning coalition.
To help in this process, I will give thumbnail profiles of each candidate. One per week, on Fridays, starting January 4, 2019 until our field is “set” or by the time of the New Hampshire primary, whichever comes first.