If You Can't Be With the One You Love . . .

February 10, 2020 / Kurt F. Stone

We begin with a bit of prophecy from one of the nation’s Founder’s, Sam Adams. Writing to his soon-to-become former friend, James Warren (1726-1808), President of the Massachusetts Provincial congress, Samuel Adams (1722-1802) addressed the seminal importance of morality, civility and education to the cause of liberty: “No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and virtue is preserved. On the contrary, when people are universally ignorant, and debauched in their manners, they will sink under their own weight without the aid of foreign invaders.” Now, whether or not Sam was a brewer (likely an urban legend), he did know a thing or two — or three - about what best nourished liberty and democracy.

It goes without saying that Adams would have shuddered in shame at the current IMPOTUS and a goodly portion of American society for being bereft of both “knowledge and virtue,” while also being “debauched in manners.” And were he alive to witness the unfolding of the 2020 presidential election, he would likely need a steady supply of his eponymous ale in order to deal with his frustration and pain. Operating under the haze of a case of “Sam ‘76,” he would likely find it difficult - if not impossible - to find a candidate to back . . . just like we moderns. Each of the Democrats “still standing” have their die-hard supporters. Then too, polling from a host of different sources shows that at this point - just after the disastrous Iowa caucuses and less than 2 days before the New Hampshire primary - nothing is even remotely close to being “sewn up.” And for those of us waiting for our state primaries to finally arrive, it is a time to weigh all sorts of things . . . like what’s most important: supporting the candidate who best exemplifies our positions and ideology, or voting for the person we feel has the best chance of defeating IMPOTUS, holding the House and capturing the Senate?

To be certain, it’s not an easy call. But what’s even more than certain is that the decision we make - between idealism and reality - is likely the most important one we shall ever make. At this point in primary season, Democratic daggers are beginning to be unsheathed - to be used against fellow Democrats. Fortunately, they have yet to become long knives or spears. Historically, Democrats have never really mastered the art of swordsmanship - let alone the sort of bare-knuckle brawling we’ve come to expect from the other side.

At this point in presidential season, there are few certainties . . . save these:

IMPOTUS will be as vicious, deceitful and fright-inducing as any candidate in American history. For him, the nastier-than-hell means will more than justify his venal, authoritarian ends.
Unless Democrats can circle the wagons around one candidate who will not fall into the trap of continually responding to Republican viciousness, we will lose not only the election - but the future as well.
That no matter who the Democratic candidate shall be (perhaps save one), that individual will be repeatedly tarred with the brush of “extreme left-wing Socialism” - despite the fact that few really, truly know what Socialism is . . . and is not.

Desperate times (and these are desperate times) call not for desperate measures; they call for courageous, intelligent, thinking-out-of-the-box measures.

We began this essay with a quote from Sam Adams as a way of succinctly analyzing the extraordinary challenge before us. We now turn to Steven Stills, rock guitarist extraordinaire (Buffalo Springfield, CSNY, Manassas), and one of the best songwriters of the past half century, to lay out what that courageous, intelligent, thinking-out-of-the-box strategy well may entail. On his 1970 self-titled album, Stills - along with David Crosby, Graham Nash, Rita Coolidge and John Sebastian had a big hit with a song entitled Love the One You’re With. Within the body of this catchy 3:05 song, Stills et al sing:

If you're down and confused

And you don't remember who you're talking to
Concentration slip away
Because your baby is so far away

Well, there's a rose in a fisted glove
And the eagle flies with the dove
And if you can’t be with the one you love, honey
Love the one you’re with
Love the one you’re with

Stills, it should be said, in addition to being in the Rock ‘n Roll Hall of Fame as both a solo artist and two different bands, has long been an activist in the Democratic Party. In 2000, he served as a member of the Democratic Party credentials committee from Florida during the Democratic National Convention, and was a delegate in previous years. And so, I find within Stills’ lyrics a most thoughtful - call it prophetic - statement. If we can’t be with the one we love - e.g. the candidate who best fulfills our ideological and programmatic wishes - perhaps we should love the one we’re with. In this case, it may well mean that we must think out-of-the-box, and support a candidate who stands with us on many issues, but - and this is a huge BUT - stands the best chance of carrying us to victory by defeating the autocrat-loving tyrant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

That person is Mayor Michael Bloomberg who, it may well turn out, was the real winner of the Iowa caucus.

As early as 2016, Bloomberg said in a speech in Philadelphia that Trump was “. . the wrong guy to be president. The way he treats people, the way he runs an organization, and the way he makes decisions is not good for this country.” Of course, for Mayor Bloomberg to receive the Democratic nomination, it would take a “brokered convention,” which some claim is a relic of the past . . . when party professionals in “smoke-filled rooms” would decide whom to nominate. Back in those times, when there was no clear-cut nominee by the time of a national convention (this goes for both Democrats and Republicans) there might be 50, 75 100 ballots or more before the old pols stepped in and made the decision. Sometimes, the candidate they anointed went on to suffer a stunning defeat:

The 1924 Democratic National Convention was hopelessly deadlocked—delegates and party officials were deeply divided on whether their platform should endorse Prohibition, and whether or not to condemn the Ku Klux Klan. After factions led by New York governor Al Smith and former Treasury Secretary William McAdoo deadlocked for a stunning 102 ballots, a compromise candidate—ambassador John W. Davis—was named the presidential nominee on ballot no. 103. (Davis ultimately lost in a landslide to incumbent Republican president Calvin Coolidge.)
The last time a Republican convention opened without a nominee decided in the primaries was in 1976. In one of the few times in history where an incumbent president was challenged in his re-election bid, Gerald Ford had a tiny lead in the popular vote and delegate count over California governor Ronald Reagan. A delegate ballot had to take place, but on the first ballot, enough delegates switched to Ford’s camp to secure him the nomination. (He lost in the general election to Jimmy Carter.)

In order for brokered conventions to work several things must be in place:

A candidate who does not have to be introduced to the convention; that person must already be well-known to the masses.
A professional political broker to act as “convention campaign manager” for the candidate in question.
A field of candidates that cannot satisfy a majority of convention delegates.

Of course, there are negatives associated with Bloomberg:

Before registering as a Democrat, he was a registered Republican and then switched to registered Independent.
In 2004, Bloomberg supported G.W. Bush (a capture of a C-Span clip is already up on the internet.)
While Mayor of New York, he instituted the “Stop and Frisk” policy which enraged the black community and made him anathema to many liberals, progressives and defenders of civil liberties. (The policy was eventually ruled unconstitutional by Federal Judge Shira Scheindlin in 2013.) Despite apologizing for the policy years later, many still hold it against him. In the same breath, it should be remembered that unlike IMPOTUS, Bloomberg was a highly successful mayor; one who was reelected twice.
Instead of spending upwards of $1 billion on a presidential race, many urge him to instead contribute that amount to Democratic candidates around the country (he has).
Over the years, Bloomberg has made some sexist comments.
Bloomberg is Jewish . . . and the 14th wealthiest person on the planet . . . which plays into the stereotype of anti-Semites. Not to worry: they wouldn’t be voting for him under any circumstances, so there’s likely no net negative here.

On the other side of the aisle, Bloomberg is perhaps the one man who can truly get under Trump’s very thin skin . . . especially when it comes to the issue of wealth. Bloomberg is a self-made man from a working-class Jewish family (his father was a bookkeeper for a dairy company). Bloomberg is worth an estimated $61 billion to Trump’s . . . whatever. The IMPOTUS is very, very insecure when it comes to his net worth and net indebtedness. Bloomberg knows how to pick that scab. The other day, when asked by a CBS reporter “Do you think people are interested in seeing two billionaires fight it out on Twitter?” Bloomberg, stared at the reporter, arched an eyebrow and responded, “Two billionaires? Who’s the second one?”

Where Trump could easily (if incorrectly) attack any potential Democratic presidential candidate as being a “left-wing Socialist” in thrall to the likes of Pelosi, Schiff and OAC, using the same rhetoric on Bloomberg would be asinine. He is a capitalist with compassion, who has been giving away his vast fortune for years, funding many, many projects and programs . . . most notably climate change and the elimination of assault weapons.

Unlike the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Bloomberg carries himself as a gentleman, and despite being 7 inches shorter than IMPOTUS (5’8” to Trump’s 6’3”) seems to be much taller. Were Trump to loom up behind him during a televised debate (as he famously did to Hillary Clinton), it is likely that the mayor could chase him back to his corner without raising his voice.

Although Bloomberg isn’t as progressive as some of the current crop of candidates, he does support a hefty new tax on the hyper wealthy, favors a Medicare-For-All program, is fervently pro-choice, is despised by the NRA, and does not run a “one man show.” He employs more than 20,000 people worldwide, reads voluminously, and knows how to take advice. And unlike ‘45, who carries enough personal baggage to fill the cargo holds of a fleet of 747s, Michael Bloomberg’s “dirty linen” can apparently be packed into a single overnight bag . . . with enough room left over for a Kindle, a change of shoes and a laptop.

And oh yes, did I mention that he would likely have the best chance of defeating Donald Trump? OK, there are going to be a lot of Democratic activists who are going to find fault with the mere thought of him being the party standard-bearer. But at what cost? Remember, the question is whether it is more important to support the candidate with whom we share the same ideals and programmatic wishes, or the one who stands the best chance of winning . . . and isn’t that far off the programmatic mark when all is said and done?

Stephen Stills was and is correct: “If you can’t be with the one you love, honey, love the one you’re with.”

I am going to support the “rose in the fisted glove.”

268 days until the Presidential election.

4 Comments 0 Likes