The title of today’s post is an obvious reference to the book and movie Searching for Bobby Fisher, chess’ version of the The Great White Hope. Except in this case, the goal was not to find a Caucasian boxer who could defeat the first black heavyweight champion. It was the story of Josh Waitzkin, a young prodigy who many viewed as America’s best chance of regaining superiority over Soviet grand masters of the “game of kings.”
Fifty two years ago, the United States was a divided nation. Divided along racial lines, divided along economic status, and divided over a war in Vietnam. In June 1968, American voters were looking for a candidate who could bring the country together. Many Democrats believed Robert Kennedy had such potential. In the era of Donald Trump, many of us are waiting for the next Bobby Kennedy without quite knowing what that means. Perhaps the best description comes from the eulogy delivered by his brother Ted.
My brother need not be idealized, or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life; to be remembered simply as a good and decent man, who saw wrong and tried to right it, saw suffering and tried to heal it, saw war and tried to stop it.
Is that not what so many cry out for today? The Democratic nominee need not be larger than life. We know what that looks like. A narcissistic cult figure who governs by fear. Good and decent, righting wrong, healing suffering and pursuing peace should be sufficient.
So how do we decide who best satisfies these criteria. One way is to examine their life’s work. And each of the candidates for the Democratic nomination can point to achievements and causes of which they can be proud. But, as is often said, being president of the United States and leader of the free world is unlike anything else an individual can appreciate or experience until they occupy the Oval Office.
We complain about what Jimmy Carter called “not a sprint, but a marathon,” the months and now years of campaigning to win the White House. But the challenges of running for the nation’s highest office are the best indicators of how one might govern. How prepared is the candidate to respond to current events? Can he or she bring people together, not by pandering to different audiences, but explaining consistent goals and policies in a way they can be understood by a diverse audience? How do they treat their rivals, as enemies or as future allies?
The number of still undecided voters in the national and early primary state polls suggests many Democrats have not yet found a champion. I am one of them. I am concerned that the current front runners have taken their eye off the prize, competing against each other rather than explaining what decency, compassion and justice will look like in a post-Trump America. Trump daily force feeds them opportunities to do this and they do not seem to respond.
Perhaps the most blatant example are recent charges by several of the candidates that the party should not allow Mike Bloomberg to “buy the presidency.” The Democratic National Committee (DNC) has implicitly affirmed this position by making the number of grassroots contributions a criterion for debate participation. (NOTE: As I have argued on numerous occasions, being excluded from these so-called debates should be viewed as a plus.) Is it not more important what you do with the resources at your disposable? Is that not what we ask of Congress and the President? We expect to pay taxes and probably would mind less if we felt those dollars were being spent effectively.
Which brings me to why attacks on Mike Bloomberg are short sighted and self-defeating. Today, I received an email from MoveOn.com. The message? If only I would send them some money today, they would start airing television ads in states with vulnerable Republican senators, imploring those members of the Trump jury to demand witnesses and evidence. Mike Bloomberg has been doing that for the last 10 days.
Trump again showed his ignorance and lack of compassion for our men and women in uniform by suggesting injuries suffered as a result of Irani retaliation for the death of Qasem Soleimani were minor, just “headaches.” Within 24 hours Bloomberg aired spots on national TV, including Fox News, chastising Trump for disrespecting the troops he commands. And following further rollbacks in environmental protection, there were ads about the existential danger from Trump’s climate change denial.
Some may find these ads self-serving. But that does not explain the $45 million dollars Bloomberg spent on behalf of 24 Democratic candidates in 2018. Of the targeted races, the Democrat in 21 districts flipped the congressional seat from red to blue. Or the millions of dollars he has donated to causes including sensible gun laws, climate change and the opioid crisis.
If Democrats want to talk about buying elections, they need to turn their attention to the $29 billion of your money that Trump hopes will placate farmers who should be suffering more than they already are from his trade wars. Or the trillions of dollars in tax cuts to lure wealthy donors to finance his dishonest and inflammatory campaign.
Like so many things espoused by the evangelical community, there is no biblical reference for the oft repeated adage attributed to Jesus, “Hate the sin but love the sinner.” But it does help explain my current fascination with Mike Bloomberg. I am far from convinced he is the Bobby Kennedy for whom I keep searching, but I wholeheartedly endorse the campaign he is running. In other words, one can love the campaign without yet loving the candidate.
POSTSCRIPT: Media Gone Wild
Ignoring facts must be contagious. This morning, Brian Stelter, host of CNN’s Reliable Sources was discussing the impact of the impeachment trial on public opinion. Both he and his two guests suggested the country was “split down the middle.” He then showed a graphic of opinions of independent voters in which 53 percent now favor impeachment and removal from office. Support for acquittal was 34 percent. To which Stelter said (I kid you not), “Again, split right down the middle.” No statistics text I used in college ever described a 19 point difference as evenly divided. It makes one wonder if these folks ever listen to what they are saying.
For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP