Amy Klobuchar and other candidates

November 2019

Abstract:
With the field of Democratic candidates for president winnowed to half, the senior senator from Minnesota has shown she's got the goods.

So let's take a look at the candidates who have survived to participate in the December debate.

Experience in public office has always been considered a critical criterion for presidential candidates. With the exception of Mr. Trump, who had no experience in government, presidents have nearly always had previous experience as vice presidents, governors, or senators. The only candidate in our history to move directly from the House of Representatives to the presidency was James Garfield in 1880 (and he had already been elected senator, but had not yet taken his seat). The pattern has been that representatives move to the Senate to get foreign policy experience, then run for president.

We had several House representatives among the early Democratic candidates this year. Most are now out of the running, with only Gabbard still hanging on at the 1-2% level of support, but essentially done for now – we'll see her again in future elections. Even less relevant experience has Buttigieg, whose CV is limited to being mayor of a very small (~100,000) midwestern city. While he is bright and well-spoken (though with less specifics than other candidates) and has accumulated a certain following, one gets the feeling of being given a sales job. In any case, I hope we have learned from our current administration the effect of placing at the helm of the government someone without the experience, connections, and know-how to do the job.

Steyer and Yang are two candidates without any government experience. Trump is the first such in the 230-year history of the presidency, and one might think these two gentlemen have been impressed with how well things have gone under Trump. But I suspect they are running for other reasons, both to position themselves in our political life and to use this chance to evangelize. They are both doing a good job of that. Steyer's billions have allowed him to emphasize the important fight against global warming. I wish him well with that, but he won't win the nomination, and certainly doesn't expect to. Yang, one of the most intelligent, interesting, and vigorous of the candidates, spreads the gospel of "universal basic income", an idea that may have merit, though it's still experimental. But it has the significant drawback that it will not get through Congress in the foreseeable future, especially since it would require major tax increases. In any case, we are getting closer to primary season, and it's time for voters to focus on the serious candidates.

Those of us who read the papers can't have missed that Democrats (I'm independent, myself) are becoming uneasy about their "top three" candidates, Senators Sanders and Warren and former Vice President Biden. Sanders and Biden would turn 80 during their first term, Sanders just had a heart attack and Biden is visibly not as sharp as he was just a few years ago. They are both on a slide which I expect will continue. (Parenthetically: I castigated Hillary Clinton in 2016 for having started the destruction of the Middle East with her indefensible Senate vote to invade Iraq. Joe Biden must bear the same responsibility, and my conclusion is the same: those who thoughtlessly caused the Middle East catastrophe do not deserve to be elevated to the position of President of the United States.) And Warren, also in her 70s, frightens the center of the party with her expensive, tax-augmenting socialistic program (similar to Sanders'), the means to pay for which seems quite foggy. Not to mention that even a Democratic Congress will not find the funding for her program. There is worry that she would find it difficult to enthuse moderates in both parties, whom she would need to win over in order to succeed in the election. In the end I don't see the party making the mistake of nominating any of these three in Milwaukee next July.

Who then? Among the current crop of candidates (and it's still possible that others may emerge) we are left with senators Booker, Harris, and Klobuchar. These three, who I would say represent traditional values of the Democratic Party, are all talented and variously experienced politicians. All are lawyers in their 50's who have left a trail of excellence. We could use them all in the new administration.

Cory Booker, the youngest of these at 50, with six years in the Senate, is a sincere and vigorous supporter of often-unpopular causes who has on occasion drawn the limelight by symbolic acts, such as fasting for a cause. He is clearly committed to improving the plight of the poor, a problem that I rank as second only to our climate emergency, but which our administrations have not made a high priority since Lyndon Johnson's time. Booker is a believer in direct action, but I judge that his eagerness and principled purity of purpose may at times get in the way of practical compromise toward solutions, a necessary quality in a president.

Kamala Harris is 55 and in the most junior class in the Senate, having completed two years (the same as Obama when he announced his candidacy for president). The rapidity of her announcement for president, shortly after starting her first Senate term, leaves the impression that she may not have intended to complete the term she signed up for. (Again, like Obama.) It seems to me that the voters deserve to get the term they voted for, at least in the case of a rookie senator. That would avoid the appearance that advancing one's career trumps the will and interest of the voters. My advice is to settle down to a term or two in the Senate, show your work there to be exceptional, which has not yet been demonstrated, then present yourself as candidate for president on the basis of your work.

Amy Klobuchar, 59, has been 12 years in the Senate, and is regarded as that body's most productive senator. No one has authored and passed more bills, and she has done this with bipartisan support. At this time of fierce partisanship, a president who can talk with both parties and come to an agreement that can make it through Congress is worth gold. In addition, Klobuchar has shown herself to be someone who can keep her cool in an argument, in contrast to several overly emotional candidates on the debate stage. It's my judgment that Amy Klobuchar is the most competent and suitable of the current Democratic candidates, and that she will overwhelm the fading Mr. Trump, if he is still in his position, in November 2020.

But Senator Klobuchar needs help, folks. She is still that undiscovered nugget we may some day count our lucky stars that we found. To learn and to help, go to www.amyklobuchar.com.