Tag Archives: Pete Buttigieg

Mayor Pete and A Year Later in Russia.

Posted on by

Before saying something about the Russian war in Ukraine after a long year, can we all look upon the hyperbole and invective surrounding the train derailment in Ohio and admit that it is pretty damned obvious who Republican politicians and right-wing entertainment “stars” fear most among Democrats in the near term? That would be Pete Buttigieg.

If some semi-anomymous chump along the lines of Trump-era grifters like Scott Atlas, or Peter Navarro or Ryan Zinke was parked in the Transportation Secretary’s office the usual echo chamber suspects wouldn’t be excoriating them by name and demanding hour after primetime hour they show up for a goddam train wreck.

Mayor Pete’s a smart dude. My guess is he understands the “outrage” is a clear tell of the right-wing’s fear of his political potency and therefore an ironic badge of credibility. (Just for kicks, I’d pay to see a Buttigieg-Ron DeSantis debate.)

But on the anniversary of the Russian invasion, lord knows no one needs another armchair general, especially one bunkered under ten feet of snow in a Minnesota suburb. But … despite not even playing a general on TV, I have consumed a lot of news reports, editorials and BBC, London Times Radio, German and Russian YouTube over the past year and feel confident enough to offer the following as a kind of digest.

1: In terms of Vladimir Putin’s successor: Well, there is none. By Putin’s design. But Russia’s military and economic situation is so perilous it is not unimaginable — “experts” believe — that he could be replaced. Not easily or peacefully. But replaced, nevertheless. But not, by my unscientific survey, by anyone less antagonistic to the West and Ukraine. In fact, I have yet to hear anyone on the topic suggest anything other than that the first move, succession-wise at the Kremlin, will be to install someone more hard-line, more vicious and more committed to total victory. Point being, no one that I’ve heard sees a popular uprising sweeping out Putin and that ghoulish, all-white collection of sycophants attending his “state of the union” address and replacing them with a 2023 version of Vaclev Havel.

2: Putin will not use nukes. At least not until his situation is desperate, and by that the pros always specify, his situation, not Russia’s. But the nuclear option comes with a handful of serious existential risks. Not the least of which is that given the corruption within his military, and the current brawling between the head of the Wagner group and the Defense Ministry, Putin can not be certain entirely anyone will follow his order to use nukes. A nuclear mutiny if you will would be a kind of final dagger to his hold over the country. Additionally and tactically, various generals and intelligence experts interviewed are certain that Putin and his current military leaders have been explicitly warned that nukes would result in an immediate, near full-scale NATO response, initially on what remains of his Black Sea fleet and any/all suplly depots and points of access into Ukraine. Finally there’s also the issue of what target to use a nuke on? Flattening Kyiv might seem obvious, but again, any Russian general can imagine NATO’s (and China’s) response. Alternately, radiating a hundred square miles of Ukrainian countryside serves very little tactical purpose.

3: Russia’s economic situation is far, far worse than standard news reports are showing. One of the more interesting characters making regular comment on the Russian economy is Jeffery Sonnenfeld, professor and senior associate dean at the Yale School of Management. He’s a garrulous guy with a torrent of opinions on Western sanctions, Russia’s myriad industrial predicaments and the hypocrisy of dozens of big name Western/international corporations — Heineken beer, Benetton, Carls Jr.(!), Emirates Airlines, Guess, Hard Rock Cafe, Iridium, Kawasaki, LaCoste, Mitsubishi, Patreon, Qatar Airways, Sbarro Pizza, Sherwin Williams, TGIFriday’s, Tom Ford, Tupperware and Yamaha and a couple hundred others — who have not ceased all operations in Putin’s Russia.

Sonnenfeld regularly argues that reports by the IMF and otherwise credible agencies reporting on the Russian economy are not disclosing that the startling rosy numbers showing only modest declines in GDP, etc. are in fact served up to them by … Kremlin bureaucrats. This in an economy where foreign traders cannot/will not deal in rubles, where the volumes of oil and gas, (40% of the Russuian economy) being sold are not being confirmed by reputable outside agencies and where unemployment statistics in Russia are equally suspect. He also reminds his audience that Europe has done a frankly amazing job of transitioning from Russian fossil fuels, a transition that it will likely never reverse … to Russia’s eternal disadvantage.

At the risk of misrepresenting his bottom line argument, Sonnenfeld says it is Russia and not the easily distracted, restless-with-commitment West that is living on borrowed time.

Well Okay, So I Guess I’ll Take Warren.

Posted on by

The rule of thumb is that in primaries you vote your heart and in general elections you vote your head. This means I have a problem tomorrow.

Almost at the exact moment I was going to start abusing the keyboard with my deep thoughts for why Pete Buttigieg was going to be my choice on Tuesday he dropped out. Ironically, the bottom line gist of my rant was going to be young Mayor Pete’s “judgment” — based on scholarship and thoughtfulness. And wouldn’t you know judgment, which is to say accepting he had no chance in 2020 and that the Democratic faithful will look more favorably upon him in 2024 or 2028 for stepping aside now, is what he showed in “suspending” his campaign.

So Mayor Pete is yesterday’s news. Now what?

Conventional wisdom says Amy Klobuchar will win her home state. You haven’t forgotten she’s from the Midwest have you? Or that she’s been “in the arena”? Or that she has “the receipts”?

Already at this point — eight months before the real election — every candidate’s operative cliches bang in my ears like a cheap tin drum. But somehow Amy’s cliches seem even more canned than most.

She’s been an effective Senator, at least on the level of constituent service, (provided by her terrorized staff), but there are just too many big, double-edged fights she’s avoided, and avoided IMHO out of calculation for her longer-term career goals. It’s wonderful she’s authored and passed far more bills than Bernie Sanders, (not a difficult thing to do). But on close inspection most of them fall into the category of requiring us to be kind to animals and eat our vegetables. The big fights … in the main arena … where the flak gets thicker and risk gets higher, is not a place she’s spent a lot of time.

The race is clearly moving to a Bernie v. Joe contest. Two nearly octegenarian white guys with the highest name recognition. Jesus.

Both come with barge-loads of baggage and an unconvincing forecast of what happens if they’re elected. Bernie is promising a near-total overhaul of 15-20% of the American economy, along with billions-to-trillions in fresh spending for a wet dream list of social programs, all while waving off the stark, ugly reality of Mitch McConnell and a federal court system every day stocked with more McConnell-knighted Federalist Society judges. Each of whom is committed to suffocating Bernie-ism before he gets directions to the Oval Office rest room.

Joe, meanwhile continues to assure us that since he’s been everywhere and met everyone in his 500 years in D.C. he’ll reach a collegial, cloakroom accomodation with Mitch and … you know … I guess … convince the Mitchs and Ted Cruzes and Lindsey Grahams of the world to give us all a win from time to time. Maybe roll back the 2017 tax cuts, stabilize Obamacare and throw some ching at climate change.

So … the heart being what it is, an emotional thing, prone to lapses of good judgment, I’ll be joining my lovely wife in voting for Elizabeth Warren tomorrow.

Warren has no chance at the nomination. And her “wealth tax”, where she basically takes the change she finds in Mike Bloomberg’s couch cushions to turn the US of A into a 3000-mile wide version of Denmark still makes no mathematical sense, while also dreamily ignoring what we’ll just call The McConnell Reality.

But what she does offer, and this is delicious, is the sharpest remaining contrast to the corrupt, semi-literate, sexist-racist vulgarian that is Donald Trump. Startlingly industrious, studious, diligent, energetic and … female, she more than any of those left standing offers an image of profound change. Also, unlike Amy, Warren is practically Spartacus when it comes to jumping into the high-profile/high risk arenas. The woman’s got fight in her. And damn … I like a gal with fight.

By Wedneasday morning though, it’ll all be Joe and Bernie, and maybe just Bernie. And with that decided, I’ll send a check to the winner, knock doors, paste bumper stickers all over my vehicle and, hell, stand on street corners– right here in Edina — and rant regularly about “a pox on the millionaires and billionaires.”

It won’t be pretty, especially if I’m still in my pajamas with a bad case of bed head. But it’s where we’ll be.

Mike Bloomberg Is Stalking Me

Posted on by

It was officially too much when Mike Bloomberg followed me to the barber shop. I mean the glossy mailer had already come to the house. And the constant TV ads long ago became a disorienting seige barrage … to the point I’m seeing perpetually joyless Mike Bloomberg in gaudy cruise wear strolling the Captain’s Deck as Grace Slick roars on about those worthless pills that Mother gives you. But at the barber? (Excuse me, “bespoke artisanal hair stylists”.) Where the tattooed fashionistas clip and trim to cheesy pop and classic rock? A Bloomberg radio ad? After a Lizzo song?

Too much.

But maybe it’s because I personally can’t imagine a less plausible character as the 2020 Democratic nominee. (Ok, maybe Marianne Williamson, or Kid Rock.) But come on! Yet another New York billionaire? A former Republican? Who gushed over George friggin’ W. Bush only 16 years ago? Who unconstitutionally “stopped and frisked” five million black and Hispanic guys? A dude with the quintessential “Yes, boss” mentality and corresponding lack of people skills? And a guy who, you just know, has a closet with a hundred more wince-inducing clips like the one kicking around today, which he has very unsuccessfully (and unwisely) tried to suppress?

For me, Bloomberg 2020 is the Democratic equivalent of the weird crush Republicans get on bizarre “outsiders” like Fred Thompson, Herman Cain, Alan Keyes and Ron Paul. The problem with that analogy is that New York fake billionaire Donald Trump was once one of those weird crushes and he won. Therefore, the thinking goes, don’t scoff at Bloomberg! He could save us!

Please. Bloomberg may be setting a new campaign tech precedent with his gargantuan media buys, and some of the ads he’s put out vivisecting Trump are exactly the kind of “put an end to the vulgarity” messaging Democrats should be hitting the public with. But a bit like Pete Buttigieg, a majority of the Democratic-inclined public has no idea who he really is. “He used to be mayor of New York. Letterman made a lot of jokes about him. I went to New York once. Had a drink in Times Square. Rode the Staten Island Ferry. Noisy place. And expensive! But, you know, we didn’t get mugged.”

It may be possible to run a mostly-all media campaign these days. But the twist in that notion is that it’s still show biz. You still have to sell a personality. A human being people can trust and relate to … on some level. Which means Bloomberg the Billionaire Boss is going to have to press some flesh somewhere and start doing a lot more impertinent media interviews than he’s done, all of which will be asking about “stop and frisk”, smooching George W. and trying to suppress embarrassing video clips … where he was simply showing who he really is.

Bloomberg will have his 2020 debutante moment at the next Democratic debate, and baby-oh-baby is Bernie Sanders going to be happy to see him. Few things strengthen Bernie’s claim to the Democratic mantle more than the possibility some stone-faced corporate titan, (“a billion-nayah!”) is the alternative to him atop the ticket this year.

Pundits are warning of the ultimate Democratic blood bath if by some infectious virus Sanders and Bloomberg are the two choices left standing after Super Tuesday. And it isn’t hard to imagine how the “Bernie bros” will respond to being blown out of the nomination by a half a billion dollar check from one guy.

Elizabeth and Amy vs. “The Mayor”

Posted on by

I hear her saying it, but I’m not convinced “experience” makes all that much difference anymore. In last night’s debate, our senator, Amy Klobuchar, sunk her teeth into “Mayor” Pete Buttigieg, arguing in so many words that he hasn’t been around the Washington political circus long enough to be as credible as she is.

Amy, who is “from the Midwest” in case you haven’t heard her say it a couple thousand times, seems to believe this is an effective diminishing attack on the very young “mayor”. (She pushed the “mayor” business often enough to let you know she doesn’t think running a city of 120,000 compares well to representing a state of 5,000,000.)

But really? Experience? After Barack Obama in 2008 and Donald Trump in 2016? In what world is experience still a primary criteria for the White House?

In 2008 John McCain was clearly the more “experienced” candidate. But raw charisma withstanding, astute voters didn’t have a hard time deciding whose fundamental judgment they found more appealing/reassuring. McCain’s long DC experience was pock-marked by dozens of examples of truly suspect judgment on key issues. In his case “experience” translated to “more of the same FUBAR.”

Klobuchar isn’t John McCain. But as hard-working and as tough a competitor as she’s proving to be on the campaign trail, I still have no sense that she has the quality of judgment to play the game as it has been designed and is being played by the likes of Mitch McConnell, Bill Barr, the Federalist Society and their vast network of very wealthy, influential benefactors.

At this point I can’t say for sure if Buttegieg does either. But he continues to display a depth and quality of thinking and judgment that suggests he understands pretty damn well how the country actually operates and what to do — and not do — to get where you have to be to make some changes.

The past few weeks — and again last night — “Mayor” Pete has been taking shots from the progressive wing for his coziness with … well, really rich progressives. This business about his fund-raiser in a California “wine cave” is bad optics in the minds of those applying the kind of sack cloth and ashes standard to progressive politics. But besides the (mild) hypocrisy of Elizabeth Warren poking him for snuggling with billionaires, he isn’t the one demonstrating bad judgment by accusing his rivals of something they all have done to one degree or another. (Bernie less than others.)

Despite their obvious tenacity, Warren and Klobuchar, both of whom are currently trailing the inexperienced “mayor” in Iowa, haven’t demonstrated to me at least that they have the fully-thought out perspective on American politics 2020-style. At least not as well thought out as, “a gay dude from Mike Pence’s Indiana,” to quote the “mayor”.

Huffington Post progressives and others seem to see Buttigieg as more somber and studious version of Bill Clinton. Another (white, though not straight male) too comfortable in schmooze mode with the tycoon class, and therefore less likely to ram through in his first 100 days all the major reforms the country needs.

They could be right. But what that ignores is that Clinton, for all his slickness, canoodling and all the dry tinder he laid at the feet of the rabid dogs of talk radio Republicans, produced indisputable improvements for women, the middle-class, science and international relations. (I’m open to the debate over welfare reform.)

Point being, as a “middle-laner” rightfully skeptical of promising voters all sorts of dreamy and wonderful things that have zero-to-no chance of so much as a hearing in a Republican Senate, Buttigieg is showing better judgment — certainly of the real world realities of 2020 America — than Bernie and Warren.

As for fellow “middle-laner” Klobuchar’s accusation that the “mayor” doesn’t have sufficient experience, those of us here in Minnesota, (which is in “the midwest” as you might know), are well aware that after 13 years as a solid, workman-like Senator, Klobuchar’s judgment has not produced the reputation of being an acknowledged leader on any of the biggest issues of our era.

The difference between listening to Buttigieg and Klobuchar talk about the country’s foundational problems is this: with Buttigieg you’re listening to someone who has impressively cross-referenced the demographics, the science and the raw vagaries of human nature and is making unique, well-considered and strategic distinctions between noble aspiration and pragmatism.

There’s an inspirational factor there.

While with Klobuchar, the sense is of someone with plenty of battle-tested experience, but whose judgment is regularly deferring to standard political positioning and protection.

Against Trump the “Alpha Factor” Matters More Than Ever.

Posted on by
Yeah, it’s a new mugshot. Trump has aged me twenty years in three.

It’s a simple fact of human psychology that people see leadership in a lot of ways that have nothing to do with integrity, good judgment and basic decency. History is littered with characters who possessed none of those virtues yet were elevated to positions of power and influence because … well because … they create a special tingle in their audience.

As much as Democrats want to jockey for position by going Deeper Into the Weeds Than Thou over sub-sections of Obamacare, the lamentable but indisputably true fact of almost every kind of existence, especially politics, is that you have to make the people see and feel something special in you. Voters, no matter how wonky and nerdy and policy-driven, want you to project back on them an image of “alpha” … whether male or female.

As the years go by I’m more and more convinced that brain chemistry and brain structure is one of the most credible explanations for the tribal division between liberals and conservatives the world over. There’s nothing racial or ethnic about it. But there is an evolutionary aspect, I truly believe.

That said, liberals, (which does not describe every Democratic voter), do react very differently to the “strong man” concept of leadership than conservatives. In my humble opinion we lefties do inject our choice of leaders with a disproportionate factor of wonky bona fides than typical conservatives. How exactly does he/she plan to get us to universal health care? How “criminal” should it be to enter the U.S. illegally?

But it is the rare, wonky liberal who doesn’t still react, instinctively, like a man-ape on the African savannah, to the feel of a “leader.” I give you, Barack Obama, as opposed to Hillary Clinton.

Obama had it all. Everything about him projected that rare but essential quality of, “I got this.” Call it “The Cool Factor”. Call it “charisma”. He had and has it. Hillary didn’t. She projected “competent management”, which is great if you’re going to run Buffalo Wild Wings, but not enough if you’re trying to stir positive-to-rapturous emotions in 130 million potential voters.

Which brings us to a key dilemma in our current environment. While there is no question whatsoever that 42% of the public feels a once-in-a-hundred-years alpha male leader quality pulsing off Donald Trump, there’s no one yet among the Democrats emitting a similar quality to possible Democratic voters.

It goes without saying the specific qualities attracting conservatives to Trump and liberals to … whoever … are dramatically, qualitatively different. Therein lies your deep tribal divide.

But one component is, again without question IMHO, the factor of confidence, which is fundamental to establishing dominance. Confidence instills the same in those seeking to be led well. It imbues a calm that allows our still primitive emotions to relax so our brains can sort out the various options to problem-solving. And it soothes us.

Specifically, this is another problem with Joe Biden. There’s a “vigor” factor involved in “confidence” and humans’ choice of leaders. Very little about Joe projects vigor or, “I got this.”

It’s also the quality still missing from my pet fascination, Pete Buttigieg.

(Very) smart. Thoughtful. Expressive of good judgment. A calm and imperturbable demeanor. Yes. All that is there and eminently valuable. But “alpha male”? Mmmmm, not yet. In the parlance of show biz, Mayor Pete needs to make himself “bigger.” But liberals can’t do bigger like Trump does bigger. Strutting around like an absurd, obese Mussolini courts immediate, richly deserved mockery. The liberal alpha also has to express authenticity to acquire the ineffable magic of “alpha.” That’s tougher. You’re not allowed to fake it.

As for the women, Kamala Harris may have it. But like Buttegieg, it ain’t there yet. Unfortunately for Minnesota, that “alpha magic” is something Amy Klobuchar lacks entirely. With her, we’re back to selling “competent management.” And there’s no inspiration that comes with that.

We tend to forget that the “alpha-ness” of Barack Obama wasn’t fully formed until he began winning. After that point we saw and heard much more of him. Winning, which is to say actually demonstrating dominance, is a critical feedback loop firing human neurons. “He has done it!”, we think, and swoon. “He will always do it!”

This week’s Democratic debates certainly didn’t do anything to establish anyone’s “alpha-ness”. But let’s thin the herd and spend more than 30 seconds per topic with these people. A couple of them may have the instinct to convey, “I got this.”

(P.S. I’m a big fan of Ezra Klein’s podcast. Via his Vox network. Here are links to two recent shows.

One with Pete Buttegieg, which includes a very interesting conversation about structural reform, all the real world obstacles to it, but the need for it to be framed and regularly reaffirmed for voters.

And another with U of Delaware prof and author Danna Young. Klein is clearly struggling with the “biological” explanation for tribalism, but here again he and his guest pull right up to the line trying to explain it. )