Saturday, November 23, 2013

WHO'S FOR WINNING NEXT TIME?

The present impossibly perverse and exceedingly dangerous era in our history can't go on for much longer. It's unlikely to outlast Mr. Obama's term, as people just won't put up with any more of it.  What will follow it may depend on whether history is for us or whether we're about to eviscerate our future.

Who wins next time may depend on who the Democrats nominate.

Remember, when you read the hype about Hillary Clinton's inevitability for '16, that she was also inevitable in '08. She's still a neoliberal, still has no personality, and is now elderly on top of that.  Forget her.

Joe Biden could be nominated only if he were to become president in the meantime, and maybe not even then .  He's too old, too eccentric, too puzzlingly exuberant and gabby in a grim time, and too identified with the status quo.

Those who want a woman who isn't a Wall Street shill were becoming excited about Senator Elizabeth Warren, till she shot them down.  She was right to.  Her professorial and sharp-tongued persona would appeal only to those who agreed with her.  The candidate's traits should draw in everyone.

New York Governor Andy Cuomo is also going nowhere.  He's unappealing as a personality, unknowable as a person, and not a sincere progressive.  Liberal bloggers have already declared war on him because, for one thing, he intentionally made it possible for the Republicans to retain control of the state senate in '12 by endorsing two of their incumbents who voted for gay marriage; his father, during his time as governor, also helped the Repubs to hold the senate because he didn't want any very liberal legislation turning up on his desk.

New York's Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is being talked about, too.  Her record in office is slight, a problem accentuated by her slim physique, sweet face, and piping voice.  Look at the women who became national leaders - such as Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, and Maggie Thatcher - and you'll notice that they weren't feminine.  This is of course an unfair criterion, but a woman candidate with heft could find a way to offset it and signal strength.  We'll see if Gillibrand can.

What kind of candidate wins a presidential election, anyhow?  Well, look back as far as FDR's day, which is when both parties became viable nationally.  Most winners were charismatic and dynamic or at least likable. They tended to have the common touch or not to conspicuously lack it.  They inspired confidence in themselves.  Such ones were Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama.

Atypical winners?  Richard Nixon was the most atypical.  He ran when people were tired of the Dems, and he had luck and political skill; even so, he almost lost in '68.  George W. Bush  was marginally more personable than the unapproachable stiffs he ran against (Al Gore and John Kerry), and he got the job the first time despite losing by half a million votes.  Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and George H. W. Bush ran in the right years, had weak opponents, and lost all political viability during their single elected terms.

Typically the losers either had personal characteristics that made it hard for most of us to relate to them or were light-weights.  Here we're talking about Alf Landon, Tom Dewey, Adlai Stevenson, Barry Goldwater, George McGovern, Gerald Ford, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, John Kerry, John McCain, and Mitt Romney.

Atypical losers?  I see only two, both capable of electrifying audiences.  The dashing businessman Wendell Willkie would have beaten anyone but the unbeatable FDR.  The inexhaustible and passionate Hubert Humphrey, after Johnson's policies wrecked his chances, had what it took to turn what would have been a blow-out for Nixon into a nail-biter.

Who looks like a winner for '16, then?

Keep an eye on Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley, an outsider who was formerly mayor of Baltimore, not a bad job in an urbanized country.  Not charismatic and not flashy, he's easy to like and knows what to say.  A governor of a very Democratic state like Maryland can make a progressive record without superhuman efforts, as he has; it's hard to be sure what comes from conviction and what from opportunism.

I lately watched O'Malley on YouTube debating the Repub former governor Bob Ehrlich.  The latter talked in unsupported generalities.  O'Malley offered three or more specifics in answer to every point.  He's smart and has an agile and well-organized mind.

O'Malley is definitely running.  Someone who isn't is Wisconsin's new Senator Tammy Baldwin, formerly a Congresswoman for 14 years.  Voters who want a woman and a real progressive could begin to look to her, since Warren has passed on a run and to them Hillary is meh.  Baldwin is consistent in her views and talks about unheard-of things like reconciling our foreign policy to the possibilities of the United Nations.  She
has an abundance of personality, and she projects both a wholesome enthusiasm and an implicit toughness and self-control.

Many may be saying that a lesbian couldn't win.  Well, gays have been getting a lot of positive notice lately, and we're starting to realize how many of them there are and how dissimilar many are to one another. They're looked on more favorably today than ever in the past, and being fair to them has suddenly become fashionable.  I'd bet that a citizen who wouldn't vote for a qualified lesbian also wouldn't vote for anyone but a reactionary.

I've watched Baldwin on YouTube in her debates with ex-gov Tommy Thompson, who was expected to win.  He was patronizing and boastful, and he tried to bully her.  She was unflappable, stayed on message very efficiently, and came across as somebody with convictions and guts who was never unpleasant but was always able to more than hold her own.  You watch her and you like her.

Something like a litmus test, for me, is where contenders stood on the administration's plan to launch attacks on Syria.  O'Malley said he didn't see the point of it, which suggests good instincts.  Baldwin was firmly against and discussed it in some depth.

I don't know who else may be out there contemplating a candidacy.  And it's always a gamble what someone will do once elected.  But I think that a Baldwin-O'Malley ticket could be - just could be - the right ticket in an absolutely crucial year.  Maybe later I'll think otherwise.  But that's what I say for now.