The Third Democratic Debate

People who witness public events usually see what they expect to see.  Depending upon their personalities, that could mean they see what they hope for - or what they dread. 

Being a mere mortal, I can't claim to be any more objective than the next observer.  My one advantage is that, as a student of history, I tend to take a longer view than most Americans - for what that's worth.

So, with that disclaimer, here's one man's take on last night's "debate":

The evening of September 12 probably didn't change the reality that this has become a three-way race among Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren. 

In truth, none of the top three surprised anyone.  Bernie was Bernie - the feisty Bernie progressives, as well as comic impressionists everywhere, dearly love.

Joe was his likable, grandfatherly self, though worryingly showing his age and lack of contact with the times. 

Liz was steady, thoughtful, and passionate, but she did introduce one new argument which she will doubtless develop over the coming months - that no American is in love with their health insurance company.  This might prove the answer to doubts about Medicare for All.  If a public option can be designed that offers the same or better coverage - and the same or better choice of doctors - no American will weep for their lost relationship with Aetna, Cigna, or Blue Cross.

All in all, it would be surprising if we enter Iowa and New Hampshire with anyone, other than these three, as serious contenders.

Five other candidates had their moments on the stage, doing well enough to justify staying in the race a bit longer.  This was particularly true of Beto O'Rourke, who will probably enjoy a nice, if ephemeral, bump in the polls after his passionate articulation of a gun policy most sane Americans would actually like to see as law.

Two candidates - Amy Klobuchar and Andrew Yang are probably done.  Klobuchar has established herself as an intelligent and thoughtful centrist, and a senator of genuine character.  However, she lacks the ability to transmit her inner fire over the medium of television - at least, in the bizarre format of a ten-person "debate".  In another era, with different technology- or perhaps simply in a different format - she might be among the leaders now.  But this is not her year.

Yang, like the excluded Tulsi Gabbard, has become something of a cult figure in this race.  But in 2020, there will be room for only one cult figure - and he will be running for re-election.  Yang and Gabbard have enough passionate fans to insist that they hang around for awhile.  Yang loses nothing by doing so.  Gabbard will likely forfeit her seat in Congress, which would be a loss for the public discourse.

Besides Gabbard, none of those failing to make this debate has much reason to soldier on.  One - Steve Bullock - will do his party and his country a positive disservice if he fails to go home to challenge Senator Steve Daines.  If the Republicans end up holding the Senate by one seat, and Bullock does not run, he will merit a far grimmer place in history than he aspires to.

In a similar vein, Tom Steyer - yet one more rich guy who seems unaware that no businessman (other than a few plantation owners) has ever succeeded as President - could be spending his millions to help end the reign of Mitch McConnell as Senate Majority Leader.  Instead, Steyer's ego has him pouring good money after bad.  He'll be on the debate stage in October, and then - when he finds out how different debating is from making video spots - quietly disappear.

To me, the most interesting story coming out of this debate was watching two young candidates begin to maneuver for positions in the next Democratic administration.

The always impressive Pete Buttigieg, in a well-reasoned passage about America reclaiming its place as the world's leader, made a strong case for being our next Secretary of State.  It's the job I've always seen him in - the ideal place for a brilliant, nuanced young person (think, Thomas Jefferson) to prepare himself for a future Presidency.

Julian Castro made a different choice - probably aiming to be the running mate of either Sanders or Warren.  His attack on Joe Biden was clearly a pre-planned take-out move, and it was fairly brutal.  Yet, for all the negative instant reaction, I suspect it will prove effective.  Liberals and progressives have a terrible tendency to be too nice by far - a characteristic they don't need when preparing for the open warfare of 2020.  Nominating a flawed candidate, out of fear of seeming "ageist", would be the height of folly.

What Castro did was to point out that the Emperor is rather scantily clad.  Nobody wanted to say it, but it's what many of us have been thinking - that the Joe Biden of 2019 reminds us of the Ronald Reagan of 1984. 

With that thought comes the fear that he he cannot be counted on to perform well in the WWE grudge-match of a one-on-one debate against the President next fall.  Also, doubts that his policies and elder-statesman persona will attract the youth vote needed to flip the Senate, and hold the House.

In taking on Biden, Castro might have sacrificed himself.  But, assuming no politician sets out to be a hero without some thought for his future, he might also be hoping that the opprobrium of the moment will fade - and that he has positioned himself to be the attack-dog running-mate either Sanders or Warren would choose to take on Mike Pence.