If you look at the history of demagoguery and fascism, it always happens when there are two things. It requires a gentle populace to allow it to happen, whether through laziness, ignorance or ineptitude, but it also requires a very angry, dissatisfied section of the populace who want egregiously simple answers to very complicated problems. — Moby
Far too many people, especially in the infinitely credulous mainstream media, believe that Trump is the first demagogue to ever hold the Oval Office, and perhaps the first one in modern times nominated by the GOP. Both are absolutely not true. Anyone with a smidgen of understanding of history knows that the GOP has assiduously, and successfully, hunted and found demagogues to run for president since at least 1959. They do it purposefully and they do it well. And they win. Mostly.
The “mostly” is the part we want to focus on. Let’s start back then.
In 1959, the nation was reeling from the aftermath of the Red Scare. McCarthy! Commies under the bed! Better dead than red, ya pinko! From the GOP’s point of view, they were coming out of eight years of relative comfort and security with the rather sanguine Dwight Eisenhower. So, did they take the safe course to coast to four more years of (relative) tranquility? (At least, tranquility for the Ozzies and Harriets of American society.) Oh, no. They chose Red-baiting, Jew-hating Richard Nixon, with his thin skin, his sense of entitlement, and his endless appetite for proclaiming his grievances and engaging in his schemes for vengeance. Sound familiar?
So, down the slippery slope they took us. Let’s do a brief summation of the last sixty or so excruciating years.
1960: DEM VICTORY
GOP Demagogue Loses
Nixon used the first hint of what we would come to call the “Southern Strategy,” the racist dog whistles that gutless pundits now call speaking with “racial overtones.”
Nixon was defeated by John Kennedy, a youthful voice of energy, optimism and change.
Side note: While Nixon conceded after several days, many in the GOP insisted that Kennedy and the Democrats had stolen the election. Sound familiar?
1964: DEM VICTORY
Outlier election. GOP Demagogue Loses
Libertarian populist Barry Goldwater was the GOP candidate. He was considered too extreme even for his party, and ran a clumsy campaign, managing to alienate a large number of his base voters.
Defeated by LBJ, who ran as the heir to the assassinated JFK, hence the “outlier election” terminology.
1968: GOP VICTORY
GOP Demagogue Wins
Red-baiting Nixon now fully embraced the Southern Strategy of dog-whistle racist appeals. He was victorious over Hubert Humphrey, an establishment, moderate liberal candidate. The Democratic Party was riven by dissension (see 1968 Democratic National Convention), which made it easy for Nixon to cakewalk to victory.
1972: GOP VICTORY
GOP Demagogue Wins
Nixon was determined to win over a fractured Democratic Party in actual disarray. He ran as a war president along with the usual semi-covert racism and Jew-baiting. He employed extreme election fraud (Watergate — do you really need a link?) to ensure victory.
Nixon was victorious over George McGovern, a semi-establishment, liberal candidate. The party was again riven by dissension. How many floor votes did it take to nominate McGovern’s running mate, five thousand and six?
1976: DEM VICTORY
Outlier election.
Gerald Ford ran at a severe disadvantage as the vice-president who pardoned the criminal Nixon.
Ford was defeated by Jimmy Carter, an outsider who ran on a platform of social justice and morality. With all of Ford’s faults, he wasn’t a demagogue, just another corporate fat cat.
1980: GOP VICTORY
GOP Demagogue Wins
Ronald Reagan, who just a few years ago was considered too far-right to represent the GOP in the presidential campaign (oh really?), ran as a folksy, smiling celebrity who kept his dog-whistling racist appeal just under the radar.
He was victorious over the incumbent Carter, who was perceived as incompetent and out of his depth. The election later determined to have been influenced by the Reagan campaign's illegal collusion with Iran, who was holding Americans captive.
1984: GOP VICTORY
GOP Demagogue Wins
Reagan rode a wave of popularity to a second term. More dog-whistling along with more of the folksy, "Mom and apple pie" stuff was combined with a stern approach to foreign policy.
Reagan was victorious over Walter Mondale, Carter's VP, another establishment moderate/liberal, who ran a stiff and clumsy campaign (sound familar?)
1988: GOP VICTORY
GOP Demagogue Wins
George HW Bush. Not an overt demagogue, but he rode to victory on Reagan's coattails. His campaign featured race-baiting to a point as yet unheard of in a presidential campaign, which gets him the demagogue vote in my book.
Bush was victorious over Michael Dukakis, a barely known candidate who ran one of the worst campaigns in modern history. Dukakis had the opportunity to run as a fresh outside voice, but managed to come across as stale as the most catatonic Democratic backbencher.
1992: DEM VICTORY
GOP Demagogue Loses
Bush tries and fails to get a second term. He runs a lackluster campaign marred by Iran-Contra and broken fiscal promises. The demagoguery was toned down for this campaign, and it hurt him. Sad that I can make that observation…
Bush was defeated by Bill Clinton, a smooth moderate outsider who brought youth, vigor and a promise of change.
1996: DEM VICTORY
Bob Dole was the GOP candidate. He was essentially a placeholder candidate who ran a safe and dull campaign. No overt demagoguery, just complacent corporate jackassery.
Dole was defeated by Clinton, who was scarred by four years of Republican attacks on every aspect of his personal and professional life, but still managed to win a solid victory.
2000: GOP VICTORY
GOP Demagogue Wins
George W. Bush was the candidate. He combined a certain folksy charm (I never saw it, but the media says otherwise) with an ugly package of dog-whistle racism and jingoistic appeals to American exceptionalism. Bush was a relatively youthful candidate who promised change.
Bush was victorious over Al Gore, Clinton's VP who ran a clumsy campaign that attempted to distance itself from Clinton (Whitewater! Lewinsky! Brown jacket!) and let the media dictate its strategy. The campaign was marred by extreme election fraud and an illicit intervention by the Supreme Court; it was here that most modern-era Democrats began to understand that if the GOP could get close enough to a victory, they would cheat and steal their way over the finish line.
2004: GOP VICTORY
GOP Demagogue Wins
Bush won re-election using the same tactics.
He was victorious over John Kerry, an establishment figure and war hero whose honorable military service was turned against him by a vicious and effective smear campaign. Kerry, like Dukakis, focused less on a promise of change and more on wonkish policy appeals.
2008: DEM VICTORY
John McCain was the GOP candidate. Not a demagogue per se, but joined by Sarah Palin, a loud and ignorant demagogue who would herald the direction of the GOP going forward. McCain was defeated by Barack Obama, a Kennedyesque candidate with youth, vigor and a promise of change.
2012: DEM VICTORY
Mitt Romney. Not a demagogue as much as he was a self-entitled elitist in the Bush Sr. mold. He closed the gap on Obama, but not enough. While writing this, and in light of Trump, I began to wonder what would have happened had the GOP run that bellowing demagogue Palin instead of Romney.
2016: GOP VICTORY
GOP Demagogue Wins
Donald “Fuck me, he actually won” Trump. The racial appeals were no longer cloaked, but were presented front and center. When media figures or Democrats questioned him or his campaign, the response was brute belligerence. The campaign openly colluded with Russian intelligence, and almost certainly committed massive election fraud. Trump was “victorious” over Hillary Clinton, who was too much of an establishment figure to present as an outsider, and whose promise of change as the first female president was overshadowed by intraparty division sowed by Russian intelligence and exploited by the Trump campaign.
So, where does that leave us in 2019?
Let’s start with the numbers. (Not the numbers again, Max, damn you!)
15 elections. Dems won 7, GOP won 8. The GOP Demagogues' margin of victory is 8-3. One defeat came at the hands of a youthful outsider who promised change, and another came as a result of an outlier election heavily influenced by the assassination of a popular Democratic president. The third came because demagoguery didn’t come naturally to preppy Bush Sr.
7 of those 8 demagogue victories came at the expense of moderate, establishment Democratic candidates.
That’s the kicker there. The only “non-establishment” Democrat to lose to a demagogue was McGovern, and he was a Congressional veteran and former Kennedy administration official, so he wasn’t that fresh of a face.
Conclusion: When we run a “safe” establishment candidate against a GOP demagogue, we lose.
Who beats them? Fresh, young(er), outsiders who run on a platform of change and a strong message of values.
Trump is the product of 50 years of GOP selection. He will run the most demagogic campaign in modern history. In my opinion, we are not going to beat him with a safe, establishment candidate. I think a stronger, newer, less “standard” candidate stands the best chance of taking the fat Nazi down. Obviously that means I fear a Biden candidacy, but oddly enough, I fear a Sanders candidacy for some of the same reasons. It has nothing to do with Sanders’s policies (definitely not “establishment”) and everything to do with his status as an elderly, occasionally grouchy white guy who has been in Congress since 1991. I fear the vision of Trump being the more youthful-appearing (yay for plastic surgery, fake hair and orange skin toner) of the two candidates during a debate. (Is this unfair to Sanders? Of course it is. Richard Nixon would feel his pain, as he came across as the older and less “vibrant” of the two candidates during their televised debates. It cost him, and it will cost Sanders, and Biden, as well, through no fault of their own.) Of course bottom-tier centrists like Ryan, Hickenlooper, Delaney and whoever else would have the same problem of being viewed as “safe,” “centrist” candidates. I even think Buttigieg has painted himself as such a calm, middle-of-the-road “nice guy” that he, too would have this problem. I like Booker’s energy and vibe, and being a black candidate helps, but he’s going to have his corporate, establishment ties hung all over him by the opposition if he wins.
Who does this leave? Strong, energetic candidates who are outside the mainstream. That includes Harris, Warren, Castro (who I think would have a great shot if he can get out of the primary), and maybe Inslee and Klobuchar (even bigger maybe here, though I do like her).
Am I biased towards the candidates I like? Sure, but I like them in part because they are smart, forceful candidates outside the mainstream. And it’s going to take one of them to defeat this Nazi GOP demagogue.
American fascism will not be really dangerous until there is a purposeful coalition among the cartelists, the deliberate poisoners of public information, and those who stand for the K.K.K. type of demagoguery. — Henry Wallace
Side note: Talk about whatever aspect of the diary or the campaign you like. I can’t stop you and don’t want to. But I really, really don’t want this to turn into another “my candidate rules and your candidate drools” festival. Even more so, I don’t want another 2016-style pie fight. I’ll ask all and sundry not to go down those paths. Thanks.
