After Obama, Democrats need a new theory of change. Pete Buttigieg thinks he's got it.

[DonViejo]

The most important debate in the Democratic primary is over how to make governing great again.

By Ezra Klein@ezraklein Apr 4, 2019, 8:00am EDT

It seems very weird that the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, is catching fire as a presidential candidate.

Until you talk to Pete Buttigieg. Then it doesn’t seem so weird.

I sat down with Buttigieg for my podcast, and came away unexpectedly impressed. A lot has been made of the eight languages Buttigieg speaks and his stint as a Rhodes scholar and Navy intelligence officer, but what struck me most is that Buttigieg has a coherent theory of what’s gone wrong in American politics, and what’s required to fix it. That’s rarer among presidential candidates than you might think.

In 2007, Mark Schmitt wrote a piece I think about often. In it, he argued that the contest between Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards was “not a primary about ideological differences, or electability, but rather one about a difference in candidates’ implicit assumptions about the current circumstance and how the levers of power can be used to get the country back on track.” It was, he said, the “theory of change primary.”

Obama won that primary, and, in the short period in which Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate, he managed to push through quite a bit of legislation. But while Democrats broadly revere Obama, there’s a consensus that Obama’s theory of change ultimately crashed on the shoals of Republican obstruction. As a result, many of the problems Obama sought and failed to address — from inequality to climate change to wage stagnation to money in politics to gerrymandering — have worsened, and Democrats see Trump as the poisoned fruit of those failures.

more
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/4/4/18290753/pete-buttigieg-bernie-sanders-filibuster-electoral-college-supreme-court

[FM123]

1. Great article and Mayor Pete makes some very good points!

One thing that did make me chuckle, though, was when I read the line that "Democrats see Trump as the poisoned fruit of those failures" I kept hearing trumpy's idiot voice saying "oranges oranges"

[Funtatlaguy]

26. The origin of our failure is the orange one.

[shanny]

28. Codswollop.

Everything was just peachy before then?



He didn't cause all our problems and they won't end when he's gone.

[Funtatlaguy]

30. I know. Just wanted to play on his word salad

[shanny]

37. oops...apologies!

[marylandblue]

2. Whoever wins has to take a bunch of Senators with him

to get a working majority in Congress.

[RLG]

4. If nominated, do you think he has coattails?

Could he save Doug Jones in Alabama? Could his coattails defeat Susan Collins and help in the Arizona race?

[bearsfootball516]

6. I don't think anybody can save Doug Jones.

Through no fault of his own, either. Democrat in Alabama who won a nailbiter election during the peak of anti-Trump anger against what may be the worst Senate candidate in history.

I'm thrilled he won, but with Trump leading the Republican ticket in 2020, I'll be surprised if Jones keeps his race within single digits.

[NewJeffCT]

12. Sadly, I agree

Jones has an uphill battle.

Now, it's possible Espy has a chance in 2020 against Cindy Hyde-Smith. He was close before and said he was just getting started with building GOTV operations in Mississippi

[Ferrets are Cool]

14. I live in Alabama (lifelong)

he has a snowballs chance in hell of winning again. I wish it were not true, but this is Alabama, where the STUPID runs deep.

[cstanleytech]

17. Hey now, I reset that as imo the stupid runs atleast as deep if not deeper here in Georgia.

[Heartstrings]

19. We have a lot of stupid up North in Wisconsin, der hey!

Major right winger just won a seat on the Supreme Court. Granted by a very thin margin, but still....

[KPN]

24. Good to know there are people like you IN Alabama!

[Ferrets are Cool]

39. Thank you. We are few, but strong. nt

[Funtatlaguy]

27. Isn't the GOP pedophile running again in Ala? I hope so.

[Ferrets are Cool]

40. Bradley Byrne will be the next senator of Alabama

[Funtatlaguy]

41. Darn. I thought I saw where Judge Roy was running.

[Ferrets are Cool]

42. He may throw his name in the hat, but it will be a Byrne landslide.

[marylandblue]

7. Yes, I think he would, because he is exciting and has vision.

So people can get caught up in the new coalition. This is how the Reagan Democrats were created. Now is a chance to reverse the process.

Jones winning in Alabama and Abrams almost winning in Georgia could be harbingers rather than flukes. We don't know which yet.

[DownriverDem]

16. I hate to say it

but is fly over America ready for Pete? We are talking about winning in November 2020 and not winning the primaries.

[LibDemAlways]

18. I'll answer your question.

Although I would hope otherwise, in my opinion, flyover America is not ready to put an openly gay man with a husband in the White House. As a nation, we haven't reached that level of acceptance. And it's a shame to say that because given his resume, I think Mayor Pete would make an excellent President.

[KPN]

23. I'm not convinced that is true. More importantly, if we let fear of losing dominate our thinking,

how in the world are we ever going to achieve real and lasting progressive change. Admittedly, there is risk and maybe this election is not the right time to accept those risks. We have a difficult choice to make as a whole.

[LibDemAlways]

29. If ever there was an election the Democrats absolutely cannot

afford to lose, it's the one a year and a half away. Electability is everything. This is not the time for experimentation, and nominating a gay man falls into the category of taking a huge risk. I personally like Warren's message, but I will work my ass off to support the eventual nominee whoever that is.

[KPN]

35. Me too. Re: Warren -- it's all a matter of perspective. I like her a lot but see her as risky a

nominee as Mayor Pete. In fact, there's risk with every candidate, some more than others. Biden seems like the least risky right now -- but his age alone is a huge factor. Also, will he inspire young , economic progressives, POC voters.

My sense is we have to see how voters turnout for the various candidates during the primaries to get a real sense of risk/electability. If one candidate clearly dominates turnout-wise with key groups, that maybe who has the least risk?

[marylandblue]

25. Well we all can see the obvious obstacles in red states.

The opportunities are less obvious. Historically, elections in similar periods of history, such as 1828, 1860, 1932, and 1980, major and unanticipated realignments occurred.

A lot of us are basing our assumptions on the path we've been on since the 1980s. But this ignores much larger historical trends. That we often go down one path for a long time, then suddenly change paths in key elections. This may be such an election. Either we will dip much deeper into authoritarianism by confirming the results of 2016, or we will completely repudiate 2016 and set ourselves in a new direction in 2020.

To get on this new path, the candidate must run on a platform of transformation, as Buttigieg, Sanders and Warren are doing. That's why Biden is not a good choice, we can't run as if we wan't to go back to 2008 or 1992. We have run as Lincoln ran, "This nation can't survive half-slave and half-free." That is, he was the first to stop ignoring the elephant in the room.

The future us not written in stone. The odds may be against us. But we must assume we can win and win big. All big winners in historical battles assumed this, which is why they fought no matter how hopeless it seemed.

[BlueWI]

44. You mean the same states that gave us Trump?

Wait, that was New York!

Seriously, we either nominate the best candidate or our party's claim to be non-discriminatory is just for cover.

[democrank]

3. One of the best articles I've read here in a very long time.

Mark Schmitt’s “theory of change primary” gave me a lot to think about and helped me figure out exactly what it was that bothered me just a few months into President Obama’s first term.

[Perrenial Voter]

5. This line got my attention:

What surprised me talking to Buttigieg was his insistence that he would prioritize political reforms over policy wins. “This is the difference between somebody who’s thinking about 2024 versus somebody who’s thinking about 2054,” he says. “To me, yes, it’s worth it because we’re talking about setting the terms of the debate as they will play out for the rest of my life.”

But how are the structural changes going to be brought about. Bernie's approach is a mass electoral uprising, which has had, so far, limited success. The thing is, the oligarchs do have a plan: they want a constitutional convention in which they are able to hardwire their current advantages into the system. This is not that much of a long shot, since they are close to having enough states on board to make this happen. But how do we undo the electoral college, gerrymandering, money in politics, a packed Supreme Court, the anti-democratic nature of the Senate, and for that matter, the institutional power of political parties? If Buttigieg has a plan, I'd love to hear about it.

[marylandblue]

8. Build a new coalition of Democratic voters who will give him the Senate too.

That's his plan, and I 'd expect him to campaign that way if he is the nominee, but it would be foolish for him to spell it out now. It's crazy enough he is running at all.

[Perrenial Voter]

9. Well, you are right that it would be foolish to lay out the plans for the Republicans to obstruct,

but I think undoing these things would require more than just control of the Senate. It would require control of state houses, where gerrymandering takes place and where Constitutional Amendments and Constitutional Conventions are voted on. This, in turn requires finding a way to bring the white working class, especially in the South and in the rust belt back, into the Democratic Party.

[marylandblue]

11. He can still do a lot with just the Senate, but there's more than that.

His assumption is that Republican support is weaker than it appears. We keep voting for change candidates but nothing changes Now here's a candidate who is not only for change, but comes with a plan for changing the system to overcome obstruction. The assumption is large numbers of voters will see the wisdom of this plan and vote Democrats in across the board.

Strategic assumptions differ from analytical assumptions. Analysis asks, '"is this possible?" Strategy asks, "If I need this to happen, how would I do it?"

On edit: he is making a white working class and Christian appeal. His biggest weakness is likely to be African Americans, but I think he may be able to overcome that.

[Perrenial Voter]

13. Very good points. That's the approach we need on climate change n/t

[KPN]

21. +1

[RLG]

32. Im not so sure about that.

I think the South is still a question mark even if Stacey Abrams runs in Georgia.

It doesn't leave enough wiggle room to pick up Senate seats. New voters aside, there are still the true believers who will fight tooth and nail against "change".

[marylandblue]

38. Of course there will be. There are people who still think Joe McCarthy was spot on.

I heard there's even a guy with a Richard Nixon tattoo.

When this sort of opportunity arises, there is a split on the right. Support for many of Trump's positions is lower than support for Trump himself. And he has accomplished very little except a tax cut. He has 't drained the swamp or anything else.

A likeable, convincing Democrat has an opportunity here. We will miss if we say "they are all just racists."

That doesn't mean they will go for someone like Pete. But at least we should be thinking bigger than "we just have to beat Trump." We need to a lot more than that.

[progressoid]

15. To be fair,

does any candidate have a plan to undo the electoral college, gerrymandering, money in politics, a packed Supreme Court, the anti-democratic nature of the Senate, and for that matter, the institutional power of political parties?

That's a pretty tall order.

[Martin Eden]

10. Bookmarked. n/t

[KPN]

20. Excellent article. I am more and more impressed with this young man every time I see, read or hear

something about or from him. He is definitely in my short list of candidates, which admittedly at this point is not very short (imo, that's a good thing though).

[jmbar2]

22. Outstanding, thought-provoking article

We also need to change the format of debates to focus on "theories of change" and proposed policies, rather than soundbites. Democrats can do that without any Republican help.

[cilla4progress]

31. If there is not a POC or woman on the ticket,

I'm out.

Well, not completely out, but TERRIBLY disappointed and far less engaged.

Dems must stand behind their big tent, diversity, we are America, representation claims with action.

And don't come at me with "but but the best person for the job...".

The bench is plenty deep with both.

Also, electability.

[RLG]

33. My pet peeve is the whole "inspirational" thing and many in here are falling into that trap.

Bernie and Gabbard aside, I don't see a difference between the announced contenders regarding policy. They all agree on practically everything. Are we voting for a candidate or is this the Democratic version of American Idol? Even if the nominee is chosen, it is still an uphill battle, especially in states such as Florida and Ohio.

[cilla4progress]

34. There are some very interesting articles,

I believe, on process.v. policy, including this one. Well worth reading.

[RLG]

36. I read the article.

Democrats are convinced, but the "process" still doesn't matter for many people.

[kcr]

43. Buttigieg is spot on here

A lot of the things he's said recently make me think he's not as close to me as some of the other candidates on issues, but this one makes him one of my top candidates anyway. He'd be my first choice if I thought he could fulfill that promise of staying on top of government reform instead of abandoning it to focusing on policy.