After Action Report 2020 -- The Primary
The primary of South Carolina, at the end of February, determined the outcome of the democratic nomination and the eventual president-elect. The endorsement of Representative Jim Clyburn instructed democratic South Carolinians that Joe Biden was the best candidate for the nomination. Representative Clyburn’s influence on the African – American community within his state imparted a pragmatic view to bring consensus to a fractured democratic party. The influence of South Carolina primary instilled a path of pragmatism for the rest of the southern primary states, or put another way, “Let’s bring rationality back and defeat President Donald J. Trump!” This message to the American electorate asked for sanity and a president with a bit more humility. Essentially, the messaging asked for “normalcy.” A good portion of the dominant caste obviously wanted the grumpy insane grandpa to go away. Another portion of the majority wanted a competent yet old, less racist, more rational grandpa. The South Carolina primary set into motion the eventual democratic nomination of Joe Biden. At the time, Joe Biden needed the South Carolina win to stay in the race. It also disclosed the weakness of the democratic field.
The President Obama coalition that won in 2008 and 2012, abandoned Hillary Clinton in 2016, highlighting the weakness in her campaign among minorities. This uncovered the fateful flaw of the party and her campaign—arrogance and assumption of the minority and women voting bloc. The presumption of 2016 election cycle regarding the coalition of the party could not and should not be repeated. The pundits inside and outside the party understood the activism of candidates like Senator Bernie Sanders and Senator Elizabeth Warren might be improbable winners of a national campaign because of their progressive programs[1] they proposed. The moderate in the field were not attracting the attention of the electorate just yet—save for two—Joe Biden and Michael Bloomberg.
Meanwhile, the diversity of the field that appealed to the greater democratic body dispersed the monies from the more charismatic participants. However, the money machine provided funding to the more moderate participants. Grassroots online fundraising by the other candidates allowed them to stay in the race until Super Tuesday. Michael Bloomberg didn’t need to fundraise as he was one of the richest candidates in the field, if not the richest. The primaries of 2020 required candidates to be virtually available twenty-four seven so they could make their appeals to the various media outlets and platforms for funds.
South Carolina bore another aspect that the democratic party needed to deal with the ever-shifting demographic within the borders of the party. Most of the candidates fought to stay in the race until Super Tuesday of March 3rd. Most of the candidates believed that if they had a good showing on Super Tuesday their grassroots online fundraising could sustain them until they attracted donor funding. The South Carolina primary exposed another factor within the democratic party’s base, that Iowa and New Hampshire were no longer guarantees for a traditional democratic candidate such as Joe Biden. America watched as Iowa went to Buttigieg and New Hampshire went to Sanders. These results indicate a growing populist movement.
In any other time, the 2020 election cycle might have been the usual circus, which it was for a while, with the over-abundance candidates jockeying for attention. The noise from the candidates was overwhelming. The primaries and debates were designed to cull the herd, but at the same time the opportunity for access was rigged for the non-financially viable candidates. As previously mentioned, moneyed interests were investing in moderation except that the more progressive candidates had to be purged to defeat President Trump. Leaving the democratic electorate to decide the candidate of progressive emotion meant the possible defeat and four more years of President Trump and even more of a deconstructed democratic system.
Below is Chart 1 which shows the results of the primaries and caucuses by percentages.
Chart 1- Caucuses’ and Primaries Feb 4th, 2020 to March 3rd, 2020. Wins by Percentage. W=withdrawn
Source – NBC News
This is where the South Carolina primary comes into play leaving the democratic outcome to the emotional masses which in turn created the possibility of more dysfunction. Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic encompassed the incompetence of an administration and the current president’s inability to truly protect the greater population. The Democratic party’s calculation for pragmatism was necessary for the public’s interests to be realized for the defeat of President Trump.
The current administration’s response to the pandemic showed the American people the true colors of a president who did not want, or have, the public’s interest in mind. The 2020 election cycle revealed another aspect of political polarization, the political strife among populace was at a tipping point. Over the three plus years, the brand of the United States of America was in the hands of a man that believed in self-promotion, not of the country, but of himself. President Trump’s personality divulged a part of the American political body that searched for certainty in an authoritarian[2].
The president’s relationship to his base and everyone outside of his base who are willing to acknowledge and accept the message of authoritarianism do so to maintain power or wrest power way from those they perceive that have it. The Republican party embolden the autocratic tendencies of the current president to maintain control of the senate and the presidency. The need for contested primaries was not wanted. The Republican party had their anointed “savior”[3] and his name was President Donald J. Trump.
Next Chapter Imperfect Human
[1] Pundits such as Joe Scarborough of MSNBC saw June 2019 debate as a disaster (link here)
[2] The authoritarian mystique is found within the “strong man”.
[3] This is the reference to an upcoming book by Jack David Eller, “Trump and Political Theology.”
Comments