Part One:
A WEALTH OF RICHES? OR A CONFUSING CACOPHONY?
We welcome Glenn Smith, political consultant in Texas who managed Ann Richards’s (successful) 1990 campaign for governor, and Mark Fernald, attorney and former gubernatorial candidate in New Hampshire. We discuss our reactions to last night’s Democratic presidential debate.
We were concerned about Joe Biden’s performance. His speaking was tentative, he stumbled over his lines, and he misstated facts in some very embarrassing ways. (E.g., he claimed that he was supported by “the only black woman to be elected to the US Senate” — even as a different black woman, Kamala Harris, was standing right there on the same stage.) We doubt that Biden could beat Trump, and we think Biden will be out of the race soon.
The candidates with the lower poll numbers, on the other hand, were quite impressive. Cory Booker was passionate and inspirational, calling us back to the core values of our highest vision of America. Amy Klobuchar was, as she has frequently been, smart, articulate, and a persuasive advocate for the cautious centrist postion. She reiterated her point that, if a woman had run for president with experience as narrow as that of Pete Buttigieg, she would never have gotten anywhere close to the support that Pete has received (both financially and in terms of polling numbers). The disparity between her performance in the debates and her success in the polls and in the media demonstrates with alarming clarity the way in which well-qualified women are marginalized as candidates and held to a higher standard than comparable men.
Last night’s debate left us with the sense that the Democrats are offering us a bounty of well-qualified candidates for president (perhaps 5 or 6), any one of whom would serve our country much better than the present incumbent. The key may be which candidate can most effectively lead the country out of its disspirited, fearful, and amoral malaise. Who can help us to press “reset,” to remember the principles on which the U.S. was founded, and to focus once again on the compassion and humanity that we all have in our hearts.
Part Two:
THE VALUES UNDERLYING THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS.
We visit again with “Dr. Politics,” Steffen Schmidt, professor of political science at Iowa State University. We discuss the impeachment proceedings in the context of underlying values. All of the witnesses so far — including many witnesses who have served in both Republican and Democratic administrations, and some still serving in that of Pres. Trump — have confirmed the basic facts. They all saw widespread wrongdoing, coordinated efforts to use the power and dollars of the American people to pressure foreign governments to take actions that serve only the interests of the President (electoral and financial).
But how will the American people, and their representatives in the House and Senate, view these facts? What message should we draw from all this?
Most Americans are opposed to any system being rigged, which they see as unfair, contrary to our democracy’s values. Rigging elections is particularly loathsome. Nor do Americans like it when some (favored) people get more than they deserve while other hard-working and worthy folks are excluded and ignored. On the other hand, Pres. Trump has succeeded in indoctrinating his base with a world-view that plays to their fears and biases, while ignoring or misstating the facts and the evidence in the real world. Can this brainwashing strategy be overcome? We will know in less than a year.
