Struggling Democrats Must Build More Bridges
Nicholas Johnson
The Gazette, Feb. 10, 2021, p. A6
Linn County Auditor Joel Miller says, “to run for statewide office may be a bridge too far if the Democratic Party cannot broaden their appeal in rural Iowa.”
He’s an optimist. The reality’s worse.
Color Iowa’s 99 counties red and blue. Six went for Joe Biden (the three with state universities, plus Linn, Polk and Scott); 93 for the former president – 94 percent.
That’s even worse than the national map: 83 percent of the nation’s counties are red; 17 percent are blue. [Photo credit: U.S. Bureau of Land Management]
Yes, I know. We don’t vote by county. Besides, half of the country’s population lives in only 143 of those counties (5 percent) – enough to make Joe Biden president.
But a political party that relies on the east coast for money and the left coast for votes is not a national party. Democrats shouldn’t be surprised to discover they’ve alienated voters in that 83 percent of U.S. counties who feel ignored and have understandably turned anti-establishment.
It doesn’t have to be this way. There was a time when it wasn’t.
An oft-told story bears repeating.
As Ken Burns tells it, “When FDR's funeral procession went by, a man collapsed; he was so overcome. A neighbor picked him up and said, 'Did you know the president?' And he responded, 'No, but he knew me.'"
Few presidents since have made that connection. President Biden has a chance.
President Franklin Roosevelt’s legacy was a Democratic Party tent sheltering those in abject poverty, the working poor, union members, small farmers, and lower middle class. Had the party nurtured that coalition instead of Wall Street, knocked on their doors and listened, it would today control most city councils and state legislatures -- plus the U.S. House, Senate and White House.
Two Texas Democratic Party officials asked me, a college student, to run for the Legislature. Stunned, I explained I was an Iowa boy, with two part time jobs, a heavy course load and knew few Austin voters.
They responded with a story of another recruit. He mumbled while talking to his shoes and asking voters, “You wouldn’t vote for me would you?”
Now understanding their standards, and decidedly less flattered, I asked, “How’d he do?”
“He won,” one replied. “He knocked on every door in Travis County – and won.” I took a pass on that opportunity.
But I remembered the lesson during the 1962 Pat Brown-Richard Nixon gubernatorial race, door knocking in an unorganized county where I knew fewer voters than I’d known in Travis County, Texas. If they were willing to door-knock I’d assign them an area and move on.
Could the Democratic National Committee find at least one experienced campaign organizer to work each of the 2500 counties now painted red? Of course. And it must if it is to be a national party representing more than 5 percent of America’s counties and 50 percent of its people, building bridges well within Joel Miller’s reach.
_______________
Nicholas Johnson of Iowa City held three presidential appointments and is the author of Columns of Democracy. Comments: mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org
SOURCES
Joel Miller.
Gage Miskimen, “Linn County Auditor Considers Run for Secretary of State,” The Gazette, Feb. 2, 2021, p. A3; https://www.thegazette.com/subject/news/linn-county-auditor-may-run-for-secretary-of-state-in-2022-20210202
Republican counties. Iowa
Trump 93
Biden 6 (Black Hawk, Johnson, Linn, Polk, Scott, Story,
https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/iowa/
Republican counties U.S.
“The Biden and Trump data in the posts appears to match the information reported by the Brookings Institute on Nov. 7. On Dec. 8, the think tank updated the report to say Biden had won 509 counties and Trump 2,547 counties, according to ‘unofficial results from 99% of counties.’”
[Me: 509+2547=3056]
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-votes-counties-election/fact-check-clarifying-the-comparison-between-popular-vote-and-counties-won-in-the-2020-election-idUSKBN2931UY
143 counties, half population
“U.S. Census Bureau, population is not homogeneously distributed across the country. In 2017, out of a total of 3,142 counties and county equivalents more than half of the population inhabited just 143 counties.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-votes-counties-election/fact-check-clarifying-the-comparison-between-popular-vote-and-counties-won-in-the-2020-election-idUSKBN2931UY
“But he knew me.”
Google search [“did you know" no "but he knew me"] turns up dozens of sources where quoted/told, but in sample none discovered with a citation to an acceptable academic or journalistic source. Maybe Ken Burns’ is the best for authenticity: Bob Fisher, “Ken Burns Spends 14 Hours with ‘The Roosevelts,” Documentary Magazine, Sept. 12, 2014, https://www.documentary.org/online-feature/ken-burns-spends-14-hours-roosevelts
# # #
A friend emailed me a reminder, this "morning after the night before," that Last July 25 I wrote a blog essay here titled "Why Trump May Win; Discouraged By The Democratic Party's Self-Inflicted Wounds." Others expressed comparable views at the time. None of us had much, if any, impact on the Party's actions this summer. But on re-reading that essay this morning, I realized that it might be worth posting excerpts from it again. For the next few days, weeks and months, both major parties' leadership will be engaged in trying to understand the presidential election and devise a change in course for their party's future. This may be of some help.
-- Nicholas Johnson
July 25, 2016
As a lifelong Democrat, I have for some years now been discouraged by the actions of the Democratic National Committee, and others who are considered members of the Party's establishment . . ..
The Democratic Party establishment had historically served, and been supported by, the poor, working poor, working class, union members, family farmers and a broad range of other demographic groups. Were it still both perceived and functioning as such, it could elect most officials from school boards and city councils to the U.S. Senate, House and White House. . . . [Photo credit: President-Elect Donald Trump, Wikipedia.org]
[But now] the Party's leadership has become -- and obviously wishes to remain -- funded by, and the legislative advocates for, Wall Street, large corporations, and the top 1% of America's socio-economic elite. It's mission, far more than the enactment of populist policies, is the perpetual re-election of office holders whose highest priority daily activity is raising money. . . .
The question is whether [this] will still work in this or any other country when one considers the Tea Party, Occupy movement, Brexit, and the unprecedented numbers and enthusiasm of the supporters of both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.
Whether justified or not, millions of angry Americans now look upon government, corporations, other powerful institutions, and those who run them, not just as uncaring for people like themselves, but as an enemy, deliberately adopting policies and budgets knowing the harms they will impose.
I am not arguing . . . that every Democratic Party official should have joined the Bernie Sanders campaign. But to so obviously trivialize, or oppose, his candidacy -- now documented in the DNC emails revealed by Wikileaks (not that it wasn't well known before) -- and carry on with 20th Century politics, was unnecessary and counterproductive. For the angry Americans, independents, youth, Democrats, Republicans, and others, it was "a poke in the eye with a sharp stick."
However experienced and well qualified for the presidency Hillary Clinton may be thought to be, when millions of potential voters (and what may turn out to be non-voters) have taken to the streets with pitchforks in hand, for the Democratic Party leadership to offer them its preeminent establishment icon only confirms their worst fears about their Democratic Party, not to mention America's future and their own.
And that's, I believe, "Why Trump May Win."
# # #
Discouraged By The Democratic Party's Self-Inflicted Wounds
And see, "The DNC Still Just Doesn't Get It," July 29, 2016.
Update July 25, 3:27 p.m. CT: Nate Silver 538 projects if election were held today [July 25] Trump would win by 54.5 to 45.5% for Hillary (percentages change over time).
Update on polls; July 30, 2016: They vary, both over time and between pollsters. The only one that really matters, because it is definitive, is the one that counts voters' ballots on November 8, 2016. Meanwhile, here is what The New York Times "National Polling Average" reported on July 30, 2016: Hillary Clinton 42.6%, Donald Trump 42.1% -- in other words, a toss-up. Of the 5 polls averaged, among the 3 putting Clinton ahead they range from 43-42% to 40-35%; the two favoring Trump are 48-45% and 44-40%. Results for 11 swing states show Clinton leading in 9, by 0.2% (Ohio) and 1.3% (Florida) to 4.5% (Virginia) and 7.0% (Wisconsin). Trump leads in Georgia by 3.3% and Missouri by 8.2%. "2016 Election Polls; National Polling Average," New York Times, July 30, 2016.
_______________
As a lifelong Democrat, I have for some years now been discouraged by the actions of the Democratic National Committee, and others who are considered members of the Party's establishment (many of whom are superdelegates). So discouraged that I'm going to undertake a two-part blog experiment.
Today [Monday, July 25, 2016] before watching any of the Democratic National Convention, or reading any of the news reports coming from Philadelphia, I'm going to write about some of the reasons for my discouragement. Later this week, once the Convention is concluded, I plan to write on the same subject once again to see what impact the Convention has had on my thinking.
It is not my purpose in this blog essay to deal with the personalities or qualifications of Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Donald Trump, or others. It is, rather, to address the way in which the Party, as a Party, has positioned itself in today's America. [Photo credit: Maring Photography; Contour by Getty Images.]
The Democratic Party establishment has historically served, and been supported by, the poor, working poor, working class, union members, family farmers and a broad range of other demographic groups. Were it still both perceived and actually functioning as such, it could elect a majority of officials from school boards and city councils to the U.S. Senate, House and White House. While there are still occasional nods in the direction of the unrepresented, the Party's leadership has become -- and obviously wishes to remain -- funded by, and the legislative advocates for, Wall Street, large corporations, and the top 1% of America's socio-economic elite. It's mission, far more than the enactment of populist policies, is the perpetual re-election of office holders whose highest priority daily activity is raising money.
In the latter years of the 20th Century this evolution might not have been very honorable, but at least it could still work.
The question is whether it will still work in this or any other country when one considers the Tea Party, Occupy movement, Brexit, and the unprecedented numbers and enthusiasm of the supporters of both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.
Whether justified or not, millions of angry Americans now look upon government, corporations, other powerful institutions, and those who run them, not just as uncaring for people like themselves, but as an enemy, deliberately adopting policies and budgets knowing the harms they will impose.
I am not arguing, in this essay at this time, that every Democratic Party official should have joined the Bernie Sanders campaign. But to so obviously trivialize, or oppose, his candidacy -- now documented in the DNC emails revealed by Wikileaks (not that it wasn't well known before) -- and carry on with 20th Century politics, was unnecessary and counter productive. For the angry Americans, independents, youth, Democrats, Republicans, and others, it was "a poke in the eye with a sharp stick."
However experienced and well qualified for the presidency Hillary Clinton may be thought to be, when millions of potential voters (and what may turn out to be non-voters) have taken to the streets with pitchforks in hand, for the Party leadership to offer them its preeminent establishment icon only confirms their worst fears about their Democratic Party, not to mention America's future and their own.
And that's, I believe, "Why Trump May Win."
Having written this, I now discover I'm not the only one with this assessment.
Michael Moore has written his analysis of why there is not just a chance that Trump could win, but "5 Reasons Why Trump Will Win."
Frankly, I think that all politics is too volatile to ever predict, with certainty, what will happen 100 days in the future. But I certainly share Moore's sense that Trump could win, and that he has a much greater chance of doing so than the Democratic Party establishment's actions indicate it understands.
Moore's analysis is too long to reproduce here in its entirety. But here are such clues as you may be able to pull from his five headings: (1) Midwest Math, or Welcome to Our Rust Belt Brexit, (2) The Last Stand of the Angry White Man, (3) The Hillary Problem, (4) The Depressed Sanders Vote, and (5) The Jesse Ventura Effect.
Read the full text and judge for yourself. Here's the link: Michael Moore, "5 Reasons Why Trump Will Win," MichaelMoore.com, July 23, 2016.
Robert Reich takes a comparable view. Here are some brief excerpts:
Does Hillary Clinton understand that the biggest divide in American politics is no longer between the right and the left, but between the anti-establishment and the establishment?
I worry she doesn’t –- at least not yet. . . .
In fairness, Hillary is only doing what she knows best. Moving to the putative center is what Bill Clinton did . . ..
But this view is outdated. . . .
The most powerful force in American politics today is anti-establishment fury at a system rigged by big corporations, Wall Street, and the super-wealthy.
This is a big reason why Donald Trump won the Republican nomination. It’s also why Bernie Sanders took 22 states in the Democratic primaries, including a majority of Democratic primary voters under age 45.
There are no longer “moderates.” There’s no longer a “center.” There’s authoritarian populism (Trump) or democratic populism . . ..
If Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party don’t recognize this realignment, they’re in for a rude shock -– as, I’m afraid, is the nation. Because Donald Trump does recognize it. His authoritarian (“I’ am your voice”) populism is premised on it. . . .
Most basically, the anti-establishment wants big money out of politics. This was the premise of Bernie Sanders’s campaign. It’s also been central to Donald (“I’m so rich I can’t be bought off”) Trump’s appeal . . ..
Last January, a Des Moines Register poll of likely Iowa caucus-goers found 91 percent of Republicans and 94 percent of Democrats unsatisfied or “mad as hell” about money in politics.
Hillary Clinton doesn’t need to move toward the “middle.” . . .
She needs to move instead toward the anti-establishment –- forcefully committing herself to getting big money out of politics, and making the system work for the many rather than a privileged few.
Robert Reich: Does Hillary Get It? Tim Kaine Is As Vanilla Middle As You Can Get," RobertReich.org July 24, 2016
Watch this space. I'll return with my post-Convention reactions by the end of this week.
# # #
