I’m one of many who are very impressed with South Bend’s mayor Pete Buttigieg — his calm elocution, his knowledgeable replies, his ability to listen, his grasp of policy, his luminous education (Harvard, Oxford), accomplishments (music, multiple languages, a best-selling memoir), and military/public service. None of this would necessarily be of more value than any other presidential candidate, however, without his sharp focus on a reality that others are tiptoeing around. A recent example makes this clear.
Esquire Magazine published an interview (www.esquire.com/...), and in one question asked Mayor Pete what he thought of the current debate on Democratic Party policies and practices. His reply, in part — the whole thing was longer and more nuanced, as is his habit — was:
The problem with making it all about [Donald Trump] is that's what we did in 2016, and when we make it all about him, then there's a lot of voters in places like the industrial midwest, where I live, who say, "Okay, but who's talking about me?" Part of how we lost our way in 2016 was, first of all, it was all about our own nominee. "I'm with her," was literally the button.
Then when we realized who the Republican nominee was going to be, the message became, "Don't vote for him." And we just left a lot of people out because it didn't seem like we were talking about the lived experience of Americans.
The “I’m with her” paragraph is causing some ill-considered responses. A few posters (on Twitter and elsewhere) are quickly withdrawing support for Mayor Pete based on those few lines, insisting that they are anti-Hillary and disrespectful.
Nonsense.
- First of all, he voted for Clinton, as did I despite similar qualms about the Democrats’ tin ear in certain areas. Her skills and experience are exemplary and in a fair society she would have won.
- Second, it’s one objectively true example of a larger problem for Dems (which was Pete’s main point): failing to communicate clearly with large swaths of disenfranchised blue collar workers on their specific worries, showing them more than just talk on what help they might expect. (One of the few times Clinton tried such a discussion — in West Virginia, talking to coal miners — was a disaster, despite the much later apology. time.com/...)
- Third, the dismissal of any candidate who isn’t “perfectly” in line with one’s preferences is ridiculous. There were a couple things I really didn’t like about Obama — the war on whistleblowers comes to mind — but put in context with the constraints he was under and what he did manage to accomplish, I’d still vote for him again if I could.
- Finally, everyone makes mistakes and questionable decisions. Candidates who adjust their actual behavior — not just their words — based on citizen feedback are the ones I want to win. (See this article for times when Pete changed his own policies to reflect South Bend’s neighborhood concerns: www.indystar.com/...)
Improvement has to start with a hard look at what worked and didn’t in the last run, no matter how much one might have supported the runner and the organization. The Democratic party needs to face the future, acknowledge mistakes, and not make the same ones again.
I’ve joined the Grassroots Fundraising Team for Pete for America. Please give what you can here (no PAC or fossil fuel company money will be accepted): secure.actblue.com/...