Tag Archives: Bill Clinton

2020 Democratic Primary

Is Kamala Harris “the most natural” political talent among the Democratic candidates? Not so fast!

“…I come to praise Harris today, not dismiss her. As the savvy political analyst Sean Trende wrote last week, she is the most natural politician in the field, and people are now underrating her chances.” – David Leonhardt, New York Times

I agree with Leonhardt (and Jonathan Bernstein, who linked to this op-ed): there’s no reason to count out Kamala Harris in her quest for the Democratic presidential nomination. It’s hardly out of the question that she could pull off a victory (though she’s experiencing a “summer slump,” in Leonhardt’s words).

It’s Leonhardt’s point – and Sean Trende’s – about Harris as the most naturally talented candidate in the field that I question. Trende phrased it this way: “She’s the most natural political athlete of the bunch …”

In the last presidential campaign the Democratic nominee conceded that she wasn’t a natural at seeking office, which serves to put the compliment of Harris in perspective.

Hillary Clinton is not a natural politician, nor is she a natural public speaker. This is not my opinion; this is Clinton’s own. “Look, I have said before and it won’t surprise anybody to hear me say it, this is not easy for me,” Clinton said at a debate in March. “I am not a natural politician, in case you haven’t noticed, like my husband or President Obama.” She has to work hard, in other words, to achieve something that appears to be an innate gift for many of her peers.

If this was meant to endear the voting public toward her, it’s not clear that it worked. Last week, Jamelle Bouie used Clinton’s own “natural politician” line in perhaps exactly the opposite way that Clinton’s camp hoped it would be used, as an example of the reasons why liberals are worried that “she doesn’t inspire in ways we expect our presidential hopefuls to inspire”; a Salon piece echoed that sentiment, repeating the line that she lacks “the charm of her husband or the charisma of Barack Obama.”

So is charm or charisma the mark of natural political talent? Or a savvy gift for relating to people, perhaps?

In an earlier political era, Lyndon Johnson was often referred to as a natural-born politician:

Johnson was … just a natural politician.…

When he was a senator, he was about to embark on a re-election campaign tour back in Texas and convened his speechwriters to review a draft speech that they had done for him. Johnson reviews this speech and he comes upon a passage from Socrates.

And he looks at this passage, and he says, “Socrates? Socrates? Now, let me get this straight. I’m going back home to Texas to talk to just plain folks, and you have me quoting Socrates?” He said, “Keep the quote in, but start it with, ‘My daddy always used to say…”

Johnson had an instinctive understanding of how to connect to people and, often, this was attributed to LBJ’s yearning for connection, to his passion for hand-shaking and back-slapping. (Quite unlike Hillary Clinton, certainly.)

Johnson is a back-slapper, a shoulder hugger, a knee squeezer. “I like to press the flesh,” he says, “and look a man in the eye.”

As Hillary Clinton suggested, the former Secretary of State’s spouse, the exceedingly empathetic Bill Clinton, has long been regarded as a natural pol.

“Bill Clinton is an incredibly gifted politician. Bill Clinton is a room and it doesn’t matter how many people are in the room, you think he’s talking to you.”

Paul Krugman, who made this observation about Clinton, contrasted him to Barack Obama. “But, in fact, Bill Clinton was not a consequential president. And Obama, although clearly not the natural politician, is a consequential president.”

Perhaps Krugman is suggesting that Obama was too cerebral, too reserved, to be considered a natural à la LBJ or Bill Clinton. Another contrast (of two legendary California pols) draws on that distinction: Jerry Brown, elected and reelected to the governorship of California twice (serving two terms beginning in 1975 and then again in 2011), was often compared with his father, Pat Brown (governor in an earlier era), who was thought of as the natural.

This small world, held together by a dense web of friendships and favors, was made-to-order for a man like Pat Brown. Smart, affable, and energetic, Pat had a natural politician’s ready laugh and long memory.

…

Jerry was unlike his father in many ways: less amiable, more introspective, and less disciplined, he was not a natural politician.

Does being a natural politician hinge on amiability, camaraderie, a longing for contact with people – or on a different skill set? Some observers might insist that (contrary to Krugman’s assessment) the intelligent, savvy Obama – a more restrained, more cool (in Marshall McLuhan’s sense) persona than LBJ, Bill Clinton, or Pat Brown – was nonetheless a natural politician. His personal gifts, including his oratory, were certainly a foundation of his political success.

I’d add that Jerry Brown’s successes over a long career arguably surpass those of his father. And Brown completely dominated Sacramento in his final two terms as governor.

Perhaps this mastery, after decades of experience, was learned and not natural? Surely that is not a distinction that the assessment of Harris’s political talent hinges on. First elected in 2004, she has been immersed in the political world even longer. She’s had ample time to learn.

Just to cover all the bases, let’s turn to the other side of the aisle. The most successful Republican political figure in the past half century, Ronald Reagan, was renowned for his stage presence, especially in front of the camera, and for communicating evocative themes in clear, simple terms with convincing sincerity.

Above all, Ronald Reagan was also a natural politician. Virtually every new account demonstrates that the stage and not the Statehouse or Capitol Hill may be the most effective launching pad for power in a picture culture.

He clearly had a knack for politics. Reagan was elected president of the Screen Actors Guild in 1947, long before he spent years honing conservative talking points as a spokesman for General Electric. But, natural or not, Reagan (as with the other successful politicians) had decades to develop into the iconic figure we remember – ‘the great communicator’ who could speak for a nation.

I’ll readily grant that Kamala Harris has an impressive array of political skills. But what is it, exactly, that she has that none of the other Democratic candidates possess in such ample measure? Why is she “the most natural political athlete of the bunch”?

She’s a good debater – sometimes; that is, when she is well-prepped in advance and doesn’t have to think on her feet (though thus far she has turned in an impressive performance in one debate out of three). A handful of sharp questions in the Senate Judiciary Committee also speak of ample preparation, not agility.

Harris – like Pat Brown, as referenced above – has a ready laugh (even when she laughs longer and harder than anyone else in the room at her own quips).

Is she charismatic? That’s a loaded word. One that is often associated with youth, vigor, and – yes – good looks. Think of JFK. Think also of Barack Obama’s enthusiastic commentary on Harris as “the best-looking attorney general in the country.” Trende’s use of the word ‘athlete’ is also suggestive. Does charisma turn on physicality, if not physical attractiveness?

In Leonhardt’s own reckoning, the Harris campaign (at this stage) has exposed a couple of significant weaknesses. “There is a pattern here. Harris can be too quick to speak or react without thinking.” The second weakness is her failure to “develop a clearer theory of her campaign’s case.” In other words, to articulate why she is running for president. She must, Leonhardt advises, “help voters understand her values and priorities.”

Leonhardt continues, “Over the last several months, I’ve had several Democratic voters tell me a version of the same story. They had just listened to Harris appear on television or a podcast, and they really wanted to like her. Yet she didn’t quite meet their expectations. They weren’t sure exactly who she was.”

Leonhardt and I – with those Democratic voters he’s spoken with – are in agreement again. But I think that singling out Harris as the “most natural” talent among the dozen or so experienced Democratic candidates pursuing the nomination reveals a hunger for an inspirational opponent to take on Donald Trump; a hope that Harris will live up to her resume and her identity and those fleeting moments in front of the cameras when she prosecuted the case (against Barr and Biden, for instance); a fervent desire to read into her something Democrats long for – rather than a reasonable assessment of Senator Harris’s political touch circa 2019.

Ed Kilgore writes today of Senator Harris:

From the get-go, she was a smart-money favorite. She was telegenic, well-spoken, and multiracial (half-Asian-American, half-African-American, and married to a white Jewish guy to boot), with a solid résumé of federal, state, and local offices — and nary an electoral defeat.

Democrats have been pulling for her – longing for her to succeed. But, as we watch the primary play out, do Harris’s political skills really set her apart?

The best politicians, those with a real mastery, seem to enjoy the give and take of the political arena. And we enjoy watching political figures – at least those on our side – who thrive in that environment, those who make it look easy and effortless. We may call them naturals.

I have no doubt that Sean Trende can make a case for the natural talent of the junior Senator from California. But placing her above everyone else in this diverse group of candidates? I don’t believe that what we’ve actually witnessed can justify that judgment.

Off the Rails, Republicans, Short & Sweet ... Short & Sour

Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Lindsey Graham averts his gaze from the Mueller Report

“I’m all good, I’m done with the Mueller report,” said Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham in an interview with CNN in South Carolina. “We will have (Attorney General William) Barr come in and tell us about what he found. I made sure that Mueller was able to do his job without interference. The Mueller report is over for me. Done.”

Move along, folks. There’s nothing to see here.

Fun fact: Graham served as a House manager (aka prosecutor) during the Clinton impeachment. His point of view toward presidential wrongdoing was different than it is today:

“So the point I’m trying to make is, you don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic, if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role. … Because impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office.”

Quotation from this video on Twitter:

April 27 update – Graham again as House manager:

“Article 3 of the impeachment against Richard Nixon … was based on the idea that Richard Nixon as president failed to comply with subpoenas of Congress. Congress was going through its oversight function …. When asked for information, Richard Nixon chose not to comply and the Congress back in that time said: You’re … becoming the judge and jury. It is not your job to tell us what we need. It is your job to comply with what we need to apply oversight to you. The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day he was subject to impeachment, because he took the power … away from Congress. And he became the judge and jury.”

Quotation from this Twitter video:

(Image from wikipedia.)

Democrats, Donald Trump, Income Inequality

The Howard Schultz campaign is already helping Donald Trump

“After this week’s CNN town hall, it’s more and more clear that any money Howard Schultz might spend on an independent presidential bid would function as an in-kind campaign contribution to Donald Trump.” – Ronald Brownstein

“To win a majority of electoral college votes, which Schultz says would be his goal, he would have to ultimately replace the Democratic nominee as the favored choice of voters who do not want Trump to win a second term.” – Michael Scherer

Schultz has praised the “thoughtful analysis” of a conservative commentator who fears the Democrats will nominate a “hard-left” candidate and – in the course of the column – demeans Kamala Harris (“shrill … quasi-socialist promising pie in the sky”), Elizabeth Warren (“Fauxcahontas … playing a game of socialist one-upmanship”), and “supposedly centrist” Joe Biden. The critic also name-checks Bernie Sanders and, of course, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. 

Schultz, who claims to be a “lifelong Democrat” – but not a very attentive one (“Schultz voted in just 11 of 38 elections dating back to 2005”), took back the praise he had offered after folks actually read the “thoughtful analysis” he was promoting;  he deleted the tweet when he was asked about it by the Washington Post, and blamed someone else for posting the link on his personal Twitter account.

Nonetheless, he embraces the conservative views expressed in the deleted column. It’s the “hard-left,” “quasi-socialist” Democrats that Schultz fears and, most scary and objectionable of all, the proposal (broached by conservatives’ favorite new Democratic Member of Congress, Ocasio-Cortez) to raise the marginal tax rate for incomes over $10 million to 70% (the level in the United States in 1980).

When asked at his CNN Town Hall what he thinks his personal income tax rate – as a billionaire – should be, Schutz concedes that he “should pay more taxes,” but tap dances for more than a minute (with platitudes about corporate taxes, the Republican tax bill, comprehensive tax reform, as well as personal income tax rates for millionaires) without giving an answer, at which point the moderator Poppy Harlow reminds him of the question and asks, “Give me a sense. Are you talking about you should pay 2% higher? Ten percent higher, twenty percent higher federal income tax?”

He stammers and says, “I don’t – Poppy, I don’t know what the number is….”

“Ballpark it for people,” she asks.

He won’t. He finally gets to the heart of his concern, “I think that what’s being proposed at 70% is a punitive number. And I think there are better ways to do this.”

Better ways. In other words, instead of significant increases in the personal tax rates of billionaires, we should seek revenue increases somewhere else.

Brownstein notes that on issue after issue, Schultz’s positions align with Democrats, while alienating Trump’s Republican base.

“To obscure his tilt toward the Democrats on almost all issues, Schultz has quickly settled on a strategy of loudly criticizing ideas popular on the party’s far-left flank.”

Brownstein perceives in Schultz’s strategy echoes of the (now defunct) centrist group, the Democratic Leadership Council, which Bill Clinton embraced in his trek to the White House.  But there’s a huge difference in the two strategies. The DLC and Clinton worked for years “inside the Democratic Party.” Regardless of what you think of Clinton or his policies, he sought to “rebuild a political majority that would allow Democrats to regain control of the national agenda from the increasingly militant conservatism within the GOP.”

Schultz seeks to do the opposite: to split the Democrats and peel off Democratic voters to his independent campaign.

‘Exaggerating the power of the left in the Democratic coalition, he’s portraying the party as beyond redemption for anyone holding centrist views. To make that case, Schultz is echoing claims from Trump and other Republicans that Democrats have become radical. At times, Schultz has even called some of the Democratic ideas he opposes “un-American” or “not American,” not to mention “punitive” and “ridiculous.”

By validating the Republican efforts to portray Democrats as outside the mainstream, Schultz is helping Trump already.’

Donald Trump, Polls, Republicans

Reason to believe, reason to doubt

“Across Poplar Bluff, a struggling town of 17,000 in a remote pocket of southeast Missouri, many residents are reluctant to criticize Trump as they grapple with the prospect that their community could be one of the trade war’s first casualties,” reports Jenny Jarvie for the Los Angeles Times.

The second largest employer in this small Missouri city, Mid Continent Nail Corporation, which employs more than 500 residents, laid off 60 assembly line workers last month – a direct result of a 25% tariff on steel imports from Mexico imposed by the Trump administration.

Residents have been rattled by this turn of events, but not enough to shake their support for Trump.

A machine programmer – and Trump supporter – at the factory says, “I support him 100%. In fact, I’d like to shake his hand. He’s doing a great job.”

A 12-year employee at Mid Continent, who still supports Trump, says, “Most workers are behind Trump, no matter what.”

The president of the local chamber of commerce said, in declining to comment about the president or his trade policies, “You won’t get a lot of people speaking around here.”

While folks fear losing their jobs and perhaps their homes, they continue to credit Trump with looking at “the big picture” and doing the right thing about trade.

At a time when Trump commands the loyalty of 90% of Republicans, this is just another data point. Although his overall approval remains historically low relative to recent presidents, at the 500-day mark, Trump’s “own party” job approval rating trailed only one president – George W. Bush, following 9/11 – in Gallup polling since World War II.

Link (and larger graph): Trump’s 500-day coup of the GOP, Conservatism – Jonathan Swan, Axios

In Butler County in November 2016, Trump received 79.2% of the vote, compared to Clinton’s 17.6%. A key to Trump’s victory were a handful of campaign promises he made that conflicted with conventional conservative views (and the well-established positions of the Republican Party and its donor class). In most instances, he caved once in office – and followed Republican orthodoxy – but he hasn’t done that with free trade and U.S. manufacturing jobs. And voters in Poplar Bluff credit him for that.

Missouri is a red state. In Butler County, more than 92% of residents are white. Fewer than 12% have college degrees. The median household income is $36,302. So, voter preferences are not surprising. But in 2012, Barack Obama received a higher level of support (25.8%) in Butler County against Mitt Romney (72.5%), than did Clinton against Trump. The Democratic ticket lost 1,327 voters in 2016 compared to 4 years earlier.

It’s likely that virtually no Trump voters in Poplar Bluff could list a single Clinton pledge directly related to the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs or the economic anxieties felt in small cities and towns across the Midwest. In contrast, they remember that it was Bill Clinton who gave us NAFTA.

And virtually all remember Hillary Clinton’s statement during the campaign that half of Trump supporters were a “basket of deplorables.”

(Photo from Google Maps.)