Reason To Believe

A two-part CNN focus group with bona fide Democratic types on the subject of the 2020 race so far demonstrated some contradictions in the expectations that democratically leaning voters exhibit.  Asked who they liked so far, some names that might be considered almost mutually exclusive were held in the same thought.  One gentleman liked Kamala Harris and expressed openness to Bernie Sanders.  A woman liked Corey Booker or Beto O'Rourke.   One panelist said she preferred to reserve judgment because there were several women already in the race who all deserved the chance to demonstrate a reason to inspire loyalty-- effectively entertaining the possibility of either an Amy Klobuchar or Tulsi Gabbard nomination.  There was one Elizabeth Warren fan, one affirmed Sanders supporter, and one woman who vehemently rejected Bernie Sanders on the basis that he was "divisive" in 2016.  This same woman, who unreservedly raised her hand in support of centrism, who unironically advanced the notion that what Democrats needed was someone like Hillary Clinton (yes the same Hillary Clinton who failed to keep Trump from winning in 2016), nevertheless later echoed the enthusiasm of her fellow panelists for the message of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  The other "pragmatic centrist" was a woman whose number 1 issue was climate change but who implicitly rejected Bernie Sanders on the basis that he is not the right gender.

In these charged times, it is difficult to communicate, and for lack of communication, to persuade, but if ever times called for coming together, these are them.  Like it or not we are in the midst of a make or break period for climate change and something must be done.  There is no time for hesitation and the time for deliberation is dwindling.  We need leaders who will without delay set us on the path toward mitigation of what could be disaster for the species, for life on earth, for the planet in a very short time.  Therefore it is worth the effort to reach out, persuade and ourselves be open to persuasion to the best of our ability.

For me, the Green New Deal is an excellent starting place.  It is in fact the de facto starting place as no credible alternative has been put forth for comparison.  Using the historic precedent of Roosevelt's New Deal that defeated the crisis of the Great Depression in the 1930's as a model, the plan is ambitious, calling for dramatic restructuring of key sectors of the American economy.  The ambition of it demands the participation of all, or put another way, creates opportunities for employment in a time when demand for labor has been in retreat.  The universal economic benefits of the plan sweeten the deal for everyone.  Who should feel threatened by it?  Billionaires, who will not particularly care that their progeny's futures could be secured by their mandatory sacrifice.  Make no mistake, it's the economic reshuffling mandated by the Green New Deal that will inspire the massive expenditures that will be undertaken from the billionaire class on propaganda to defeat it and on showy but meager measures to make it appear unnecessary to those not paying attention and above all to preserve the current lopsided, disastrous, immensely dysfunctional order with its current, messed-up priorities.

For this reason, the presidential election of 2020 is perhaps the most critical for generations.  Only five candidates for the 2020 Presidential election-- Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren; all of them Democratic, natch*-- should be under consideration by anyone who considers this "existential threat", in the words of Green New Deal sponsor Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the primary issue facing us.  The degree to which any candidate-- including the five just listed-- supports or continues to support the Green New Deal or promotes ideas that rival it in effectiveness should be a major factor in choosing among them.†

Beyond the primary, whoever wins the 2020 election will of course necessarily have won the electoral vote.  It's been statistically demonstrated time and again for the past several election cycles: only a victorious Democratic candidate will have also won the popular vote.  It's critical that Donald Trump's opponent be someone capable of both.  While I personally would not reject a candidate on the basis of gender, I sympathize with those who hope for and are perhaps ideologically intent on the Democratic nominee being a woman.  To whatever extent someone feels a desire to settle scores from the bitter defeat of 2016 at the hands of a demonstrably misogynistic contingent of the opposition, I see little to blame.  I recognize in this requirement of a candidate, however, a less than solid foundation that could spell trouble in the general election.  Advice for all of us to heed, including myself: are your motivations for supporting a candidate transferrable theoretically to anyone with an open mind?   As noble as the sentiment behind a gender test for a candidate is, it does not strike me as the relevant priority for 2020.  If that candidate does not also support the Green New Deal or a viable alternative to it and does not inspire confidence in her ability to defeat Donald Trump, I will have tremendous difficulty being persuaded.

Please disregard for now that if it comes down to it, it will not be the first time-- but rather merely just another time-- that I've voted without being fully persuaded.  I'm holding out hope that 2020 will be different.
~~~~~~~~~~
*[Updated!] New Yorkers: If you have already registered to vote in New York as of May 31, 2019, you must declare your affiliation as a Democrat by October 11, 2019 in order to be able to vote in the April 28, 2020 Democratic primary.

† If you're considering Joe Biden at all I have seven words for you: "I wish I could have done something."  If you're getting ready to board the Beto O'Rourke or Pete Buttigieg trains, first read these.