20 or so Democrats are headed to the debates. Is it more? Maybe, but I’m not counting. I’m sure we’re all plenty confused. How should we evaluate all these presidential candidates? In some sense, you can evaluate the presidential candidates however you want. I’m not your boss. But here are the key questions I ask when I’m evaluating presidential candidates.
What Are Their Views?
Like Homer Simpson, I start with the easiest part of any voter’s job: the cuts.
I do this with issues and policy. As I’ve said earlier, I’ll consider voting for someone if (and only if) I’m convinced they’ll work hard to leave the country better off than they found it. That’s the minimum bar, but most candidates don’t meet it. And while I think it’s a good standard for general elections, it’s an even better one for primaries. Even ‘vote blue no matter who‘ types could vote for someone decent in the primaries.
Advocating for good idea is a big part of this.
The thing is, the US presidency is a destructive force. There’s a lot of potential to do harm as president. To not do harm, here’s the kind of platform I need to see: clear support for a direct route to universal health insurance (i.e., ideally the Sanders–Jayapal bills in Congress), anti-interventionist foreign policy stances, strong ideas on racial justice and criminal justice, support for strong action on climate change, and support for a much more open and less punitive immigration system.
Again, that’s the minimum. I’d like to see more. I’d like to see a well worked out Green New Deal, fully anti-imperialist foreign policy, full decriminalization of the border, a single-payer health insurance plan, genuine steps toward prison abolition, support for studying reparations, and so on. But, for now, we’ll see who clears the minimum bar above.
Who Passes Muster?
In my view, three of the candidates clear that bar: Julián Castro, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren. Some of the other candidates clear one or two, but not most or all. Cory Booker, for example, has strong ideas on criminal justice. Tulsi Gabbard often advocates for anti-interventionism, though this is tempered by her anti-Islamic statements. Another issue with Gabbard is that she has zero chance of winning the nomination.
Andrew Yang arguably clears the bar along with Castro, Sanders, and Warren. But two considerations work against Yang. One, he has zero chance of winning the nomination. And, two, his UBI proposal is such a bad idea and so central to his campaign that it probably swamps any good ideas he has.
Ultimately, only Castro, Sanders, and Warren show inclination toward advocating for a better world. Based on that, I’m setting the other candidates aside. If you think any of the others meet the above standard, make a case for it in the comments section below!
As a starting point, these three presidential candidates aren’t the same. Castro is the strongest on immigration. Sanders is the strongest on criminal justice, health care and racial justice. Warren is the most skilled policymaker, and is strongest on taxes and economic regulation. But they’re all worth an evaluation.
What’s Their Political Vision?
Presidential politics isn’t just a matter of laying out a big platform and a bunch of proposals. Presidents are guided by a broader political vision. And so, eventually, we need to see that vision.
Why? A couple of reasons.
One, the ideas presidential candidates advocate for now are going to get altered, watered down, et al., by the political system much later after they win office. If they ain’t fighting for Medicare for All now, good luck getting them to do so under greater pressure. Presidents rework their views for a general election audience, come under the influence of the people they hire and work with, et al.
Two, presidents are busy. They might say they support 20 issues, but they’ll only have time to work on, say, 4 or 5 of those issues. Which one are most important to them? Their political vision provides us with clues as to what they’ll prioritize. Even though they have pretty similar platforms, I think this is where we’ll see some interesting contrasts among Castro, Sanders, and Warren.
The Political Visions of Castro, Sanders, and Warren
It’s pretty clear Bernie Sanders organizes his campaign around an animating vision of social democracy. He calls it ‘democratic socialism,’ even though it’s not really socialist. What Sanders wants is a society where we use economic wealth and resources publicly and democratically to provide everyone with a decent standard of living and all of the basic services they need.
Elizabeth Warren is a progressive economist. She wants to use the resources and power of government to free up the flow of capital and solve problems in the capitalist system, especially unproductive money and resources. And she wants to solve those problems with an eye toward how the problems and solutions impact middle income Americans. I’ve called her Capitalism’s Heart Surgeon, which is exactly what she’s trying to be.
Julián Castro is much tougher to figure out. He’s not a veteran politician, and he’s not really known for having an animating vision. The deeper part of his political history is his time as Mayor of San Antonio, where he focused primarily on economic development. He’s particularly friendly to education and immigration.
Early Evaluation
I think we can say some things about what these three presidential candidates would prioritize.
For Bernie Sanders, his Sandersista Trinity – Medicare for All, a $15 minimum wage, free college – flows pretty directly from his social democratic vision. Sanders would probably focus on some or all of these things in office. I’d also expect him to emphasis criminal justice and racial justice, given that these things are central to his plan to unify a Democratic Party containing elements hostile to his campaign. He’s relatively less likely to spend his time on immigration, taxes, or foreign policy.
For Elizabeth Warren, her entire slate of policy proposals, from a wealth tax to universal child care to a restructured regulatory system to student loan debt forgiveness to breaking up the tech monopolies, is about freeing up the flow of capital. As president, she’d focus on each of these things because they hit her central theme. I’d expect her to spend relatively less time on ideas like immigration, Medicare for All, criminal justice, or racial justice.
For Julián Castro, I think the top priority is immigration reform. He has by far the best and most comprehensive immigration plan. Along with this, I’d expect him to promote funding for education and free trade policies and deals. It’s difficult to say how much time he’d spend on health care or taxes and regulation, the main priorities of Sanders and Warren, respectively. But it’s probably safe to say it’d be less time than Sanders or Warren would spend on them.
What Have They Done in Office?
Second, let’s consider what they’ve already done. Are they any good at doing what they want to do? What’s their record?
Sanders has a reputation for being ineffective as a politician, but that’s largely inaccurate. The Nation profiled his time as Mayor of Burlington, Vermont, and I’d recommend reading it. His vision as Mayor was remarkably similar to what he’s advocating now, and he was pretty successful. He implemented worker-friendly, popular, and social democratic ideas. As a member of Congress, he’s had strong success at passing amendments to bills on a wide range of topics. Things like restricting imports on goods made with child labor, funding for community health centers, childcare assistance for members of the armed forces, and restricting the use of bailout funds for displacing US workers.
Warren’s record, too, is consistent with her goals. As a Senator, she works on freeing up the flow of capital. She supports regulation of large businesses, particularly in a way that prevents cash hoarding and asset bubbles. She proposed and ushered through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The CFPB is about as on theme as it gets.
Castro’s a bit more difficult to judge, as his politics took quite a turn after 2017. As Mayor of San Antonio, his policies were generally pro-business and pro-education. His record at HUD is pretty uneven. His record’s not awful, though it’s noticeably worse and less consistent with his current vision than Sanders and Warren.
From Where Do They Draw Power?
Third, there’s the issue of how they draw and use power. People overlook this, but it’s very important. Getting things done as president requires drawing on a strong base of support. If a good base isn’t pushing them, they simply won’t do it. And the reason is that the pressures of the office are immense. Presidential candidates can run against war and bad trade deals all day. But if the right pressure isn’t there, they won’t do what they say. See: Obama, Barack.
The problem here is that the standard Democratic base isn’t effective at pushing for transformative change. And so, we should be looking for presidential candidates who draw support from outside that base. In particular, we need to see candidates drawing from left-leaning non-voters and independents, working-class voters, particularly working-class people of color, and voters who make up the precariat.
Who’s Supporting Castro, Sanders, and Warren?
I won’t say a lot about Sanders here, because I’ve already written a post on the Sanders base. Again, the gist of it is that the Sanders 2020 campaign looks a fair bit different from the 2016 campaign. He’s still drawing support from young people and independents. But he’s adding to that some very solid support among working-class voters across racial lines. This is very promising, and it leaves Sanders well out in front of Castro and Warren.
Right now, Warren’s base is almost entirely among wealthier white progressives. This was a group that largely supported Sanders in 2016, but has gravitated toward candidates like Warren, Pete Buttigieg, and Kamala Harris. They’re active and engaged, but not known for pushing presidential candidates to the left or holding Democrats accountable. So, Warren’s not doing well here right now, which, to some extent, I think she knows. She’s made recent efforts to expand her base via small donors, and it’ll be worth watching to see if she succeeds.
At this point, it’s extremely difficult to determine who makes up Castro’s base. The reason is that he’s only polling about 1-3% in the primaries. That doesn’t leave much opportunity to do in-depth analysis. My impression is that he’s generating some interest among Latinx voters, particularly second and third generation Latinx voters motivated by issues of immigration and racial inclusion. If so, that’s a start to building up an independent base that can push for action. But Castro will have to greatly expand these efforts to get anywhere near Sanders territory.
Will the Presidential Candidates Be Effective?
I suppose there’s one final question, and that’s the question of effectiveness. This is difficult to judge, and it’s governed in part by forces outside of the president’s control.
I think all three of these candidates will face serious challenges. For Sanders, it’s opposition from more moderate elements of the Democratic Party. For Warren, it’s fierce GOP opposition and her lack of appeal to a base of power that can help overcome that opposition. And for Castro, it’s the aforementioned lack of base of power along with his reputation for folding in the face of opposition.
“Who Should I Vote For?”
Castro, Sanders, and Warren are all acceptable choices, but which is the best choice? My own preference is for Sanders, and the main reasons are probably clear by now: his social democratic vision, his pretty decent record, and his potential to draw on an independent base of power.
But I think that if your top issues are economic performance and targeted programs for lower and middle income people, Warren’s an acceptable choice, though I still think Sanders is a better one. Castro is a fine choice for people for whom immigration is far and away their top issue.
