When presidential campaigning began in earnest a year ago, few could have imagined that the first actual voting, in Iowa, would be backgrounded by an impeachment trial. Yet it seems appropriate to our national quandary as Maine voters await their own turn four weeks later.

Since the Republican Party lies supine before Donald Trump, the action is among Democrats, and — despite fears that having two dozen candidates would produce chaos — we now know the four front-runners pretty well.

Democratic contests almost always end with a moderate vs. a liberal; the last liberal to win the nomination was George McGovern, in 1972 – in political terms, before the dawn of time. While McGovern’s campaign was hardly a success, it seems that 48 years later, Democrats might want to try again.

The contenders who’ve run previously, Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, fit this template precisely.

Sanders, who finished second to Hillary Clinton in 2016, has been in permanent opposition, from early races as a fringe party candidate in Vermont, to his breakthrough as independent mayor of Burlington in 1980, election to Congress in 1990, and the U.S. Senate in 2006.

During three decades in Washington, Sanders hasn’t noticed it’s a two-party system; he runs in Vermont’s Democratic primaries, yet refuses the nomination and campaigns as an independent, “democratic socialist.” This might be merely quirky, except that socialist parties worldwide are struggling, with no one knowing precisely what “socialist” means.

Sanders inspires voters at countless rallies — much like Donald Trump — but lacks any plausible plan for governing. From a health care bill that offers everything for everyone, to his conviction taxes on the rich can reach stratospheric heights to pay for it, he’s not in the reality zone.

Joe Biden, other than similar longevity, cuts a different figure. A weak candidate in 1988 and 2008, he passed up the one opportunity, after two terms as vice president, when he might have contrasted favorably to Clinton. Four years later, he’s offered no policy ideas around which Democrats can rally.

Biden still seems the senator elected 48 years ago — and that’s problematic. At the fateful Clarence Thomas hearings in 1991, he failed to call Anita Hill’s corroborating witnesses, paving the way for confirmation. It produced the seemingly permanent, 5-4, rightward mold; Thomas, the most conservative justice, replaced Thurgood Marshall, the most liberal.

With Biden and Sanders, we have the two oldest men who’ve seriously sought the office. While people are living longer, one wonders about capability for the nation’s most demanding job.

Among newcomers, the moderate vs. liberal track is squarely filled by Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren.

Buttigieg has engaged voters in New Hampshire for over a year. He’s bright, personable, and makes connections on many issues; we’ve gotten over the funny name.

Buttigieg is also 38, and would be the youngest president ever. With just two terms as an Indiana mayor, it’s hard to see him standing toe-to-toe with the incumbent; the vice presidency seems a better bet.

Then there’s Elizabeth Warren. She is, all too obviously, the only woman with a fair chance of success. The trauma among the plurality of voters who favored Clinton over Trump in 2016 is her candidacy’s unspoken backdrop.

Yet as Maine Democrats know, comparing female nominees for governor in 2010 and 2018, it’s not about being a woman, but being the best candidate.

Warren is certainly tough enough. Growing up in an Oklahoma Republican family, she learned that government is not the enemy of personal aspiration, but a ticket to the middle class — as millions of other Americans learned in the decades following World War II.

What she also learned, as an attorney and law professor, is that the nation’s concentrated wealth also desires complete political control — and has nearly achieved it. After the Great Crash of 2008, she convinced President Obama that a Consumer Finance Protection Bureau was needed — the only time his administration favored borrowers, rather than bank bailouts.

When Obama declined to nominate her to head the agency she’d built, she ran for the Senate in Massachusetts, ousting an incumbent and arriving in Washington determined to do something concrete, not just rhetorical, to right the economic balance.

Her detailed plans are legendary, but more important is her demonstration that she can accomplish them. She recognizes that inequality is our keystone crisis. Moving toward a universal health care system, or combatting global warming, depends on a fair tax system.

Warren demonstrates both the understanding and the ability to get this done. Not since the Great Depression have we confronted such a stark contrast between plutocracy and democracy. In this contest, moderation is no virtue.

Douglas Rooks, a Maine editor, opinion writer and author for 35 years, has published books about George Mitchell, and the Maine Democratic Party. He welcomes comment at drooks@tds.net

Copy the Story Link

Comments are not available on this story.