The Bloom and the Bern 

The two theories of how to beat Donald Trump 


There are many, many things wrong with Michael Bloomberg’s billion-dollar vanity exercise. But there is one thing he gets right, and it’s also the thing that gives me pause about Bernie Sanders’ increasingly likely nomination.  

The issue isn’t ideology. On that score, I’m mostly in Bernie’s camp. I believe in universal health care and a Green New Deal. I think ICE should be abolished, private prisons should be banned, wealth should be taxed, coal plants should be shut down, public schools should be better funded, public universities should be free, childcare should be publicly supported, and military adventurism should be vastly curtailed.  

But I also think Donald Trump poses a singular threat to our institutions, and that if he wins, we’ll spend four more years sliding toward authoritarianism. So defeating him is priority one. 

Bloomberg’s campaign isn’t premised on ideas. The whole thing can be summed up in one sentence: Trump is bad, and I can beat him.  

Let’s make one thing emphatically clear: Mike Bloomberg is the absolute wrong person to deliver this message. Bloomberg’s history of racist, sexist, transphobic comments is disqualifying. Stop-and-frisk is disqualifying. Trying to literally buy an election is disqualifying. Having the plutocrat hubris to first suggest that other candidates drop out so he can go mano-a-mano with Sanders before his first debate is disqualifying. (Watching Elizabeth Warren disembowel him was fun.)   

Bloomberg is a terrible candidate. Democrats would be nuts to nominate him.  

But that doesn’t mean we should ignore the one thing he accurately intuits: If the election is a referendum on Trump, Trump will lose.  

Unseating an incumbent is hard under the best circumstances; only once in the last hundred years has a party lost the White House after one term in power n 1980, during a recession and the Iran hostage crisis. It’s even more difficult when the economy is growing. Any normal president would be favored this year, when GDP is growing at about 2 percent, we’re adding about 200,000 jobs a month, and unemployment is under 4 percent.  

But Trump isn’t a normal president. He’s never had positive approval ratings. He probably never will. Democrats are ahead in generic polls, and most major Dem candidates consistently poll several points ahead of the president.  

Bloomberg’s theory, then, is to simply let Trump beat himself. For all of his braggadocio, Trump doesn’t want a referendum on himself. He wants an enemy  someone to make as despised as he is.  

Any Democrat will be attacked, called a commie, a baby killer, the antichrist, perhaps have Trump’s Department of Justice launch an investigation into some family member. But Sanders is leading a self-described political revolution. He also has a long history of praising aspects of repressive regimes, including the Soviets and the Sandinistas. (Just this weekend, on 60 Minutes, he threw in some nice words for Fidel Castro’s literacy program.)  

So an election that could be a referendum on Trump will instead become a referendum on (democratic) socialism, Sanders, and his revolution.  

That’s what Trump wants. Maybe that’s what Bernie wants, too  sweeping reforms shouldn’t be secondary players in an election. It is not what Democratic Party leaders  or Dems in vulnerable congressional districts—want.  

I normally don’t find establishment pearl-clutching interesting. For decades, the party has been terrified of its own shadow even as radicalizing Republicans redefined the political center. But I do worry that Sanders might be the wrong person running the right campaign at the wrong moment. 

The thing about revolutions  or major legislation  is that they usually follow disasters. The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments followed the Civil War. The New Deal came amid the Great Depression. The Civil Rights Act followed JFK’s assassination. Even the Affordable Care Act followed a global economic collapse. The economy isn’t as great as Trump claims, and perhaps it will crash in the next eight months  coronavirus fears tanked global stock markets on Monday—but right now, we’re not there.  

That’s not to say Sanders is unelectable, or that Democrats vying for the so-called moderate lane would be more electable. Sanders can inspire and mobilize in a way that Joe Biden and Mike Bloomberg never will.  

But I suspect that a campaign focused more on prosecuting Trump’s malice, incompetence, and corruption than selling an overhaul of the U.S. economy  while explaining the differences between communism, socialism, and democratic socialism  is more apt to succeed.  

Peter Hamby made a compelling argument for Vanity Fair last month that my concerns are misplaced: “What if Sanders is actually the MOST electable Democrat? In the age of Trump, hyper-partisanship, institutional distrust, and social media, Sanders could be examined as a candidate almost custom-built to go head-to-head with Trump this year.”  

Sanders, Hamby continued, has five things going for him: celebrity, media-savvy, a clear message, a fundraising machine, and an army behind him.  

The last thing is the most essential.  

Bernie’s theory is that he’s going to rewrite the playbook, that his movement will inspire young and disenfranchised voters to turn out in record numbers, while his economic populism will peel away segments of the Trump coalition.  

In a close election, which forecasts suggest this will be, a surge of new voters could put Sanders over the top  if they’re in the right states, and if they’re not offset by otherwise-Trump-wary suburbanites scared off by the S-word. 

This is Bernie’s high-stakes gamble. It’s a bet Trump appears eager to take.  

Then again, Hillary Clinton was eager to run against Donald Trump.  

(Jeffrey Billman is the editor of INDY Week, in Durham, North Carolina.) 


No comments on this story | Please log in to comment by clicking here
Please log in or register to add your comment

Connect with us