Together, It's A Heck of A Party: Can They Make It Work for Them?

When twenty presidential candidates take the stage, some new ideas are likely to emerge. Some might even be good ones.

With this group of Democrats, there were plenty of good ideas and well-expressed. Nobody's saying much about it right now, but the display on June 26 and 27 was pretty darn impressive.

It was also a relief of sorts. There were no ad hominem attacks, though sharp exchanges between Kamala Harris and Joe Biden, and Julian Castro and Beto O'Rourke, were to be expected. Yet, the verbiage was respectful and measured, not random slams based on exaggerations.

I wonder if people came away from that believing that, if nothing else, maybe a Democrat should be given a chance to undo the terrible damage that the awful words of 45 have done, so far, these past two and a half years. And none of them lied or even were disingenuous.

Really. You know if you watched it. If you didn't, you have to take my word for it: A normal political exchange between competitors is still possible in this republic.

The language expressed, the ideas made, the respect between competitors, cannot compare with the stumbling, bumbling, Neanderthalish Republicans, who oversimplify and brutalize every policy initiative, even those begun by themselves, seeking a two- or three-word phrase that either deflects or deceives.

Rachel Maddow is right: Each of the 20 candidates had an excellent, meaningful moment during the debates. Each said something not only articulate, but even profound, right up to Marianne Williamson's "We welcome the stranger (which is challengeable, by the way, worth a discussion based on history)," which, if not one hundred percent true, is something many of us strive for or should strive for.

There were plenty of others: Eric Swallwell's comment that he has to remember what his kids wear to school so just in case they get gunned down, they can be easily identified as dead or alive; is that chilling enough? Tim Ryan's reminder that if the Democrats don't become a party at least partially sensitive to the working people, they'll lose again: Can there be any doubt about that?

The three I have mentioned above have almost zero chance of being nominated, much less elected, president. But I'll take their minds and their approaches over every single other Republican candidate I have heard speak since Eisenhower. Republicans have sloganized their messaging so much that they literally have nothing new to say. They are bobbleheads who quote each other and posture for effect--the effect being the largest person or the largest voice being the one who evokes enough fear, which substitutes for real strength, which takes work and thought and adjustment through time, not just the same solution for every problem.

It's a collection of talent far superior to the one conservatives raved about four years ago. Only one of them will survive this cutthroat competitiveness, though.

Is it possible that that winner can combine the best attributes of the whole bunch? If so, it would be one formidable candidate. Who would that be?

Here's another question: Can the debate-primary system we are now stuck with bring that about? Can the combination of politicking necessary to weave one's way to the top rung become the strainer through which the most negative aspects of a presidential hopeful are wrung out, and the best left over at the bottom, then poured out for magnificent display?

Or will the winner, having had to take incredible shot after incredible shot, be so beaten up and susceptible to attacks by the time the process ends and the final campaign begins that he/she can't possibly overcome the name-calling, castigation, innuendoes and outright lies we know will come from 45, who will take advantage of what gets laid out there for him? The process undoubtedly makes people inwardly tougher with each showdown (As it did when I ran for the NEA Executive Committee for a second straight year. People were looking at a different person then.) But will it make them weaker in the eyes of too many?

Impossible to say, but there are already built-in strainers that might eliminate candidates who may be some of the best the Democrats have. The cut-off support numbers for candidates before the next debate have doubled, and some candidates who accorded themselves quite well and have excellent credentials struggled to make the first cut. Does the relative paucity of support reflect their lack of electability at this early date, thus eliminating someone who might just come roaring from behind?

All this may be excessive hand-wringing, of course. All may yet be well. But it also might not. We can't afford to get it wrong this time. A loss in 2020 won't so easily be waved off by an attitude of we'll-get-'em-next-time. The country would look far worse than anything we have had to endure. The vacuum of leadership already evident would deepen. Encouragement of polarization for another four years would take hold in more ways that would be truly frightening.

Here's hoping the Democrats get this right. They have plenty of material to build a solid candidacy. Whether they can put the right parts in the right places at the right time, though, will determine our destiny in no uncertain terms. One of the concepts that the candidate must get across, too, is the very idea that that's what's at stake.

Maybe that's why so many came out to run. Maybe that alone is a good sign.

Be well. I'll see you down the road.


Mister Mark