By now, many of us have had at least a good first look at the field of Democrats vying for the Democratic nomination for President, each and every one of them far better suited for the office than its current occupant.
The first debates have identified potential upstarts: Former Obama Administration official and mayor of San Antonio, Texas, Julián Castro; California Senator Kamala Harris; Pete Buttigieg, the earnest and charming mayor of South Bend, Indiana. Other lesser-profile candidates, including Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Washington State Governor Jay Inslee, and Hawaii Representative Tulsi Gabbard, have also presented as formidable contenders.
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, arguably the top two progressives, have proven impressive, both on the debate stage and on the campaign trail. Warren, in particular, radiates the erudition and feistiness that will be needed to trounce Donald Trump. Her sharp critique of an economy that disportionately benefits “a thin slice at the top” is matched with specific policy prescriptions on everything from student debt to universal health care. “I’ve got a plan for that” has become a catchphrase of her campaign.
Up against Trump, whose shallow grasp of issues is compounded by his bumbling inarticulateness—“I know words, I have the best words,” he once assured us—it’s hard to imagine that Warren wouldn’t blow him out of the water. But honestly, it’s hard to see how any of the current contenders, with the possible exception of former Vice President Joe Biden, would not come across looking better in a debate against the Prevaricator-In-Chief.
Instead of pondering the tired question of who can win, why not focus on who should win?
The question will be whether it matters. Hillary Clinton, by any objective standard, bested Trump in all three of their debates. But the Republicans and Fox News proclaimed him the winner anyway and enough people—some of whom didn’t even watch the debates—ended up voting for Trump to give him a narrow win in the Electoral College.
Predictably, there are grumblings about how Trump might win if the Democrats fail to nominate a centrist. As always, such talk ignores the history that the Democrats’ strategy of nominating mild-mannered centrists, from Hubert Humphrey to Hillary Clinton, has often failed. A far better strategy would be to pick a candidate whom a broad swath of voters feel jazzed about.
In fact, Trump is such a disaster—and his poll numbers are so low and the harm he’s doing to the environment, judiciary, and democracy is so apparent—that it’s likely he will lose to any credible contender. So why not pick one who’s unabashedly progressive?
Library of Congress, Prints and Photos Division.
Our founder, Wisconsin Senator Robert La Follette developed a reputation for his progressive values and fierce opposition to corporate power and political corruption. Frequent clashes with party leaders earned him the moniker "Fighting Bob."
Any candidate who wants to follow Trump as President must demonstrate a commitment to combating climate change commensurate with the existential threat it poses. We have already lost too much ground (in some cases literally) for half-measures. It’s time to go all out—and while we’re at it, create millions of new jobs.
A candidate for President worthy of progressive support must be devoted to fighting income inequality, reducing student debt, and extending affordable health care to all. She or he must defend the right to safe and legal abortion, push back against the toxic rise of the radical right, and pledge to pursue a humane immigration policy. And our next President, unlike our current one, must care about housing and schools and healthy foods and Internet access for all.
Finally, our next President must take a skeptical view of the use of U.S. military power to resolve disputes, and recognize the monstrous insanity of endlessly preparing to fight and “win” a nuclear war. Trump’s manifest incompetency on foreign affairs has damaged relationships and needlessly escalated tensions around the globe.
But there is no reason to believe, based on past experience, that just electing a Democrat will ensure that sufficient progress is made on any of these issues. That will depend on whether there is an active and engaged citizenry determined to fight the avarice and corruption at the heart of our politics. It will require real work and real sacrifice.
Perhaps, in the end, it is less important who we nominate to run against Trump than what steps we take to build support for the changes we want to see.