The Democrat First Primary Debate, Part 2, Thursday, 2019-06-27

The candidates for this second round (of the first debate) were:

Marianne	Williamson	(Author, and spiritual guru)
John	Hickenlooper	(former Colorado Governor)
Andrew	Yang	(former Corporate executive)
Pete	Buttigieg	(Mayor of South Bend, Indiana)
Joe	Biden	(former Vice President, with Obama)
Bernie	Sanders	(Senator for Vermont)
Kamala	Harris	(Senator for California)
Kirsten	Gillibrand	(Senator for New York)
Michael	Bennett	(Senator for Colorado)
Eric	Swalwell	(California Congressman)

Marianne Williamson:  Almost all of what Ms. Williamson said was sensible and rational, even if out of place in a presidential debate.  Her closing statement was that she would counter Trump's strategy of mobilizing fear for political purposes, with love.  At the risk of discrediting myself, I think this should really be what we try to do, but obviously, with more conventional rhetoric!  To my great satisfaction, I admit that both nights, the Democratic candidates were firm, sometimes fierce, but never harsh.  There is a significant chunk of our population that thinks that US politics and foreign policy should be conducted with testosterone and bullying.  But few of them are in the Democrat Party.

John Hickenlooper:  He came across as a centrist, who disagreed very little with the other candidates, and did not bring a lot that was different to the table.  He is evidently a geologist by training (?), and can be depended upon to support climate change initiatives.

Andrew Yang:  Yang had an interesting idea that every citizen should receive a $1000 / month income.  I'm not sure this is an idea whose time has come, and it is a not a bad one; it would be more palatable if it was linked to some service that was required.  But at this time, other problems need more attention.

Pete Buttigieg:  Made an excellent impression whenever he was called.  Interestingly, he did not support the steps toward universal health care supported by the others.

Joe Biden:  Did not present any distinctive policy ideas; his main feature seemed to be that he had a better chance to replace Trump than any of the others.  This panders to the increasing belief among those who are observing politics as complete outsiders, that style is more important than substance.  This may be true, in the noxious style environment that Trump has wielded, but on principle, it is too much of a concession of decadence to go along with.  We must cling to our belief that we have a rational electorate for at least a little longer.

Bernie Sanders:  Said nothing surprising.  But a new perception emerged last night; it seemed that a lot of his initiatives are fueled by a very personal anger toward the insurance industry, Wall Street, Big Oil, and so on.  It sometimes makes sense to become heated when condemning these entities, but a cool head when dealing with them is needed, in my humble opinion.  As I said in my previous post, we do need specifics when dealing with major initiatives with enormous consequences.

Kamala Harris:  Came across very well indeed.  She raised her hand when the entire row of candidates was asked who would support abolishing private health insurance; she is now evidently on board with Medicare For All, and certainly for Universal Health Care.  As someone said, people do not necessarily like their present insurance company; what they may like is their present health provider.  With Medicare, you can continue to get treatment from your preferred provider, who will find it simpler to bill Medicare.  When asked how she would pay for Medicare For All, she retorted that she appreciated the question.  But where was this question, she demanded, when Trump pushed through that massive tax cut in 2017?  Nobody seemed to worry about how to pay for it then!  This was essentially Jill Stein's position, when asked how she would pay for free college education.  (Stein went further; she said she would print more money.)

Kirsten Gillibrand:  was not very aggressive, and as a result, did not get a lot of talk time (a total of about 7.5 minutes, compared to the longest time of all the candidates of Joe Biden: 13.6 minutes).  But she emphasized that she participated with Bernie Sanders in some Medicare For All bill, which implemented a transition phase in which private health insurance still played a role (which many of the other candidates seemed to want.  Bernie himself chose not to mention this feature, which seems to indicate to me that he is driven by considerable anti-health-insurance-industry animus).  Kirsten G. soft-pedalled her interest in Equality of Women, Female Reproductive Rights, and other social justice issues, which received considerable applause.

Michael Bennett:  Seemed very centrist to me, except when he gave his opinions about Trump.  His views were in line with most of the other candidates (except for supporting private medical insurance, at least as an intermediate step).  His speech is a little difficult to understand.

Eric Swalwell:  Seemed frustrated at not being called upon more frequently.  His words about gun control, and assault weapons ban, were moving and persuasive.  Whatever happens, they will not be forgotten.

To summarize, I feel, with considerable surprise, that---with the exception of Andrew Yang, who has a good idea, but was not a persuasive speaker under debate stage conditions---the younger candidates did better than Bernie and Joe; and Elizabeth Warren did pretty well, and she may well end up the candidate who wins the nomination; but very clearly, the women did better than the men.

The women outshone the men for both parts of this first debate; something that the News companies are not shouting about because (A) they want Trump voted out, as do most of us, and (B) they think a woman is not electable, remembering 2016, perhaps, and being persuaded that misogyny is more deeply rooted in US politics than racism is!  For pure charisma, it would be difficult to beat Kamala Harris.  For sheer determination, and preparedness, and thoughtfulness, it would be hard to beat Kirsten Gillibrand, and Elizabeth Warren.  Amy Klobuchar has a strong list of achievements in the Senate, and seems to be able to support good initiatives from others in a thoughtful way.  Thulsi Gabbard and Marianne Williamson have good ideas, but don't appear to have the charisma that being a presidential candidate in the US seems to require.  This is unfortunate, because some people who do indeed have little or no charisma can fake it, and that's what we have now!  Trump's charisma seems to consist entirely of saying: "I'm very, very rich," which seems to gild him in the eyes of feeble-minded strangers to the world of rational thought.  The very idea that a presidential candidate would even consider pandering to the feeble-minded just makes me want to stay home on election day, which is utter foolishness, of course.

Passing the Torch

I'm trying to think what drives Joe Biden.  It could be sheer ambition; he ran once, for president, and was bullied off the candidacy, for having borrowed rhetoric from John Kennedy, or someone.  It was a more morally upright time in terms of intellectual property, I guess, before China lowered the bar.

It could be fear that no one else can defeat Trump, because the latter appeals to the unfortunates in the Midwest (and certainly in Pennsylvania, a place in which I had been proud to live at one time; I still live here, but I'm less proud of it), and the so-called Rust Belt.  It is not so much a belt as a sort of half-ripped-off patch on a pair of jeans.  Just as it is difficult to got one's head around out-of-work coal miner, it is equally tough to worry about those who helped to put together the metal monsters that cheerfully participate in this climate change we're seeing.  Americans are not about to give up their destructive personal transportation any time soon, which means that (non-unionized) workers in other countries earn money for the cars that we drive, which is what Trump parlays into votes.  It's all parlay and parlay, and no substance.

It could be---and I don't really believe this---that Joe does not think an ideas man can win the election (and this is what Marianne Williamson says too: we need the right tone rather than detailed plans).  Perhaps he thinks that these young firebrands---and the old firebrand---are likely to alienate voters, while Slick Joe can schmooze them, after which, all the good ideas can cut in.

It could be that those in his bubble are all of the previous generation, and they all desperately want to have a few more years of comfort, before they go on practically permanent pro environment austerity.  If nothing else, the Green New Deal raises the specter that, in order to delay and postpone environmental ragnarok, belts will have to be tightened.

I sincerely wish that those participating in these debates take a few hours to watch and listen to them.  Someday, a Democrat president will have to listen to Republican colleagues in Washington.  They should practice by listening to their fellow-candidates for a start.

Wouldn't it have been wonderful if one of the candidates had said the following in their closing statements?:

"Look, friends; for the purpose of this debate, I have made it look as though I have all the answers.  But it is actually a team effort.  I can provide leadership, but once we win this election, we must have a team to do the spadework; the mental and physical spadework.  We have watched, with horror, a president who has no idea how to put together a team, and a party that has no one to offer for that team, anyway.  If I win the nomination, and subsequently, the election, I would like all of you on my team.  If I lose the nomination, I would be delighted to be on your team, any one of you!"

Arch