The Pete Principle
Later on this Palm/Masters/Game of Thrones Sunday, the hot new “likable” candidate Pete Buttigieg will participate in the current, and frankly rather annoying, trend of doing a “formal” campaign launch after weeks of campaigning. It’s smart strategy, similar to a cold opening where you can fine tune a bit then get the spotlight again for “opening night.” Heck, Senator Gillibrand has done it twice already, not that many people noticed. But Mayor Pete has decidedly different circumstances, coming off two weeks of mostly positive media coverage, a respectable fundraising haul for the quarter, and the unofficial media status as “next big thing.” Coinciding with his launch, New York Magazine has a in-depth profile:
Sick of old people? He looks like Alex P. Keaton. Scared of young people? He looks like Alex P. Keaton. Religious? He’s a Christian. Atheist? He’s not weird about it. Wary of Washington? He’s from flyover country. Horrified by flyover country? He has degrees from Harvard and Oxford. Make the President Read Again? He learned Norwegian to read Erlend Loe. Traditional? He’s married. Woke? He’s gay. Way behind the rest of the country on that? He’s not too gay. Worried about socialism? He’s a technocratic capitalist. Worried about technocratic capitalists? He’s got a whole theory about how our system of “democratic capitalism” has to be a whole lot more “democratic.” If you squint hard enough to not see color, some people say, you can almost see Obama the inspiring professor. Oh, and he’s the son of an immigrant, a Navy vet, speaks seven foreign languages (in addition to Norwegian, Arabic, Spanish, Maltese, Dari, French, and Italian), owns two rescue dogs, and plays the goddamn piano. He’s actually terrifying. What mother wouldn’t love this guy?
Ok, then.
Olivia Nuzzi is a great writer, and might be coming at it a tad high and fast, but this is still tame compared to the Baal-like roll out of one Beto O’Rourke, the previous bright shiny new object in some parts of the media. His Vanity Fair launch piece involved Annie Leibovtiz working her magic to convey Joe Hagan’s prose about Beto who “seems, in this moment, like a cliff diver trying to psych himself into the jump. And after playing coy all afternoon about whether he’ll run, he finally can’t deny the pull of his own gifts.”
Whereas Beto comes off as trying really hard to be intellectually significant and deeply meaningful, Pete Buttigieg comes off as someone who has spent time really working at being smart and thoughtful. He has all the youth of a Beto without the annoying bored-rich-dude-seeking-purpose-and-destiny vibe the skateboarding, counter-climbing, punk rock former congressman gives off. Buttigieg has some talking points on his resume that make him stand out: veteran, polyglot, Harvard, Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford, pianist, and all the right consulting and campaigning gigs for various places in Democratic circles. He is also politically ambitious. He came up short seeking the Indiana Treasurer’s office, then won election and re-election as mayor of South Bend by healthy margins.
The increased coverage also brought plenty of ugly. Certain corners of the commentariat have taken to writing about and debating if the openly gay and married to his husband Buttigieg is “gay enough,” or only came out later in life for political reasons, or various other items of nasty speculation whether he’s down for the LGBTQ struggle to a sufficient degree. There are no links to those as you can find them on your own and most aren’t worth your time. That’s also a product of the “silly season” of the campaign, but should still be denounced. As should folks questioning if the Episcopalian Buttigieg is a “true Christian” or not.
The other narrative that has risen is the “feud” between Buttigieg and VP Pence, though it’s been rather one sided to this point as the vice president’s public comments have declined to say anything negative about Buttigieg personally, both men having known each other from Indiana politics. We will see how long that lasts, and there is always the looming inevitability of Pence’s current boss getting involved and escalating the rhetoric on a number of issues if Mayor Pete the upstart becomes serious challenger for the nomination Pete.
Most folks don’t care one way or the other, and those that do aren’t going to change their mind on a policy position after making that the deciding factor. It is a candidate’s persona and positions that will make the difference, and the narrative of the first always outweighs the latter. Towards the end of the NYMag piece, there is a telling quote from David Axlerod, who helped steer a relatively unknown junior senator from Illinois into the White House not too long ago.
“Elizabeth Warren is sort of running laps around people right now in terms of producing policy,” Axelrod told me. “He will have to build out some of his policy ideas. But the main thing is, how do you go from an organization that won a race in a venue that is smaller than a congressional district and scale that up to a national campaign? That’s challenging. In that regard, the early success is a mixed blessing.” He added, “Now you’re in the game and you’re drinking from a fire hose, and you have to scale up very, very quickly.”
What Axlerod is getting at here is right: Narrative only goes so far as you can sustain and project it. Warren has been releasing policy proposals nearly weekly, but her campaign is seen as stagnant at best and floundering at worse. Fair or not, her narrative has been set that she missed her time in 2016, the PR debate over her heritage and DNA testing did her no favors, and her fundraising and messaging are not breaking through. Changing that narrative will be difficult if not impossible in a crowded field, and the public and media have little patience for rehabbing candidates at the moment.
Which brings us back to the current bright shiny object in the political sky, Pete Buttigieg. The last few weeks have seen him amplified and signal boosted enough by a political media that is otherwise mostly bored with the current state of play in the primary and need a story to chew on for a few weeks. Other than folks waiting to see if Joe Biden dances to the 7th veil and gets in or is just teasing, not much is going to change in this race between now and the first debates. Talking heads need something to kick around, and Pete Buttigieg is the perfect combination of different, engaging, and intelligent to fill plenty of airtime, eating up space in Twitter and Facebook posts, and keep the horse race narrative going. There has to be an underdog to the story, whether he wins or not, and Mayor Pete checks a lot of those boxes. What he does with it is wholly up to him. Novelty wears off quickly, and if he doesn’t have a message beyond that to distinguish him from a crowded field that has a sameness of political thought problem brewing, he might find himself the underdog that was interesting while not much else was going in the campaign, but couldn’t challenge for the title in the end.
Great summary. I like Buttigieg a lot, but also have some serious doubts about his campaign, and this article sums up both.
I also am, I have to say, a bit leery (OK, hundreds of kilobytes leery) of the idea of the Mayor of South Bend going straight to the white house.
PS: a lot of people complain about “cancel culture” on the Left, but the continued visibility of Erick Erickson shows that there are also real problems caused by a lack of cancel culture on the Right.Report
We seem to be watching a series of events weakly similar to the rise of Obama. Obama was lightning in a bottle, as Jaybird put it, and the left/media want desperately to recreate that. But much like the scene in Groundhogs day, the one were Murry attempts desperately to recreate the night before in the hope of landing McDowell’s character. Each turn they take furthers the distance to achieve that dream.
This is why we are seeing puff pieces on every single candidate that rolls off the assembly line. In each case the get glamor photography, comparisons to Dem hero’s and primetime ad space, er bio pieces. And they inevitably crash and burn. Beto, Warren, Gillibrand, Klubacher, watching them all fall of the map while the two whom the D’s desperately don’t want to represent them rise in the polls. Biden and Sanders are too old, too white and too male for how the party is positioning itself these days.Report
I think that “boring” will be a selling point for whomever goes up against Trump. We shouldn’t undersell the temptations of returning back to a place where we don’t care if the democrats and republicans are arguing over whether the tax rate ought to be N% or N+.5%.
Sure, the Republicans will still be evil, but they’ll be Romney Evil and not Trump Evil.
Don’t you want to go back to that?Report
Pandora. Her box done been opened.
Would I love that? Sure, for certain values of love. But what Trump has really done is torn the wallpaper off of some moldy and stained walls. What with the media going full Russia, the college admission scandal, #MeToo, Virginia and on and on. Those things aren’t related to Trump directly, but many people feel that his presence, and the D reaction to it*, has brought those things into the sunlight.
The more I think about things, the more I come to the conclusion that the D’s are acting way too much like the R’s post-Reagan. In that they wanted something so bad, and were so close, that they were OK with pushing a whole lotta things, things that up until that moment were solid planks of the party, off of the table.
So, yes, I would love that. But I also would love to stop balding.
*You know that scene in The Thing, where they test to blood with a hot wire? Its kinda been like that.Report
For what it’s worth, I don’t think that the Dems will know how to push for “boring” in the nomination.
I just think that “boring” would win the election. (But “less boring than Trump” should not automatically be assumed to mean “boring”. As Pillsy points out, it’s easy to be a less boring than Trump.)Report
I agree with you on both counts.
It is going to be Harris.Report
I think it’s too soon to tell.
I mean, it’s hard not to be more boring than Trump, but a lot of the ones we’ve got are non-boring and the boring ones seem to be struggling to get attention.
I don’t think Buttigieg is one of the boring ones FWIW.
Bernie and Biden, despite being old as hell and white guys, will both be, ah, a little on the exciting side I think.Report
Eh, on the spectrum, I think that Buttigeig is likely to be boring in the way that mayors are boring. A good, solid governance-based executive type.
I see his campaign as “vote for me for Congress/Senate” rather than running for Prez. (Maybe he’s running for VP, I dunno.)
Pity that he’s, like, 12…
But you’re right. It’s waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too soon to tell.Report
He’s from Indiana.
VP is the typical next step for Indiana pols who don’t see anywhere else to go.Report
I don’t understand the “running for VP” claim. I generally disagree with it, but this cycle especially. We can all imagine situations where 3000 supporters could propel a Democratic candidate into the presidency in 2021. Any candidate who thinks he could persuade people has got to consider himself a viable candidate.
I mean. if I play one of those record-breaking lotteries, am I playing for 5 matches and $12 million? If I got it, sure, I’d take it, but I’m playing for 6 matches and the $1 billion. I’ve got as much of a chance as anyone. Virtually zero, but the same chance. If Buttigieg gets only a political boost out of running, whether that be increased name recognition or a higher office, he wouldn’t turn it down. But since his strategy is identical whether he’s playing to win or to show, what’s the point of guessing a single motive behind his campaign?Report
Eh. Mike Gravel is running (I caucused for him in 2008!) and he argued that he’s not running in order to win, but running in order to change the debate.
In years past, when I identified as Libertarian, I argued that the goals of the Libertarian candidate were not to win the presidency, but to change the frame and the overton window. Make the candidates disagree on Legalized Pot. Make the candidates disagree on Gay Marriage! Change the debate!
I see half of the guys running for the nomination as “you’ve gotta be kidding me” kinda aspirants… unless I see them as being ideological-types who are hoping to change the debate.
Buttigeig is the mayor of South Bend. He’s 12 years old. While I appreciate the whole “hey, and maybe the horse will learn to sing” possibility (and I know he appreciates it), I see him as having a long list of goals and “Prez” ain’t the main one. It might be the one-in-a-million shot… but his goals are a handful of other things. (Not shameful things, not bad things, not unworthy things.)
And, yeah, one of them probably might be VP.
Might put Indiana in play.Report
Let me ask this: has anyone in the modern (post-Watergate) era ever attained the vice-presidency by running a presidential campaign? You’ve got Bush Sr. in 1980, and Al Gore arguably made his case for the VP slot in 1992 by running for president in 1988, although he had name recognition before the presidential campaign. Both of those candidates had reasonable chances of winning in their presidential years, so I wouldn’t say that either of them was running for VP.
So, if the term means “running to increase your political profile”, I can understand it a little better. Still, the expression “running for VP” implies a motivation that isn’t obvious, and nothing good comes from guessing political motives. Further, it implies lack of credibility as a presidential candidate, and should we be so confident in our ability to guess the eventual winners?Report
In one sense you are correct; he’s interviewing for the office of President. Should he win, he will be president.
Should he not secure the nomination, the act of interviewing will have alerted various constituencies with positions to bestow that he is available and willing to interview.
I agree that it is pre-emptively dismissive to say that someone is “only” running to be VP, but not necessarily dismissive to say that running is an experience that might lead to a higher office… somewhere, some how. That’s kinda how you do politics – esp. at a National scale.Report
Some candidates are no doubt running for Cabinet positions. For candidates from the West, the logical slots are Energy and Interior (Interior being almost always filled with someone from the West since the 1950s). I’m not sure which position a mayor from Indiana might be angling for.Report
Bracket Czar.
That’s cabinet level, isn’t it?Report
Welp. That didn’t take long.Report
Housing, NIBYism, and gentrification are, I believe, the actual fracture point in the Dem coalition we really have to worry about, and probably one that’s more, rather than less, serious as we pick up more of the affluent suburban professionals that the GOP is shedding.Report
I suspect, though I don’t know, that the NIMBY/Gentrification fans are more likely to donate to politicians than the Affordable Housing For Affordable People crowd (who, I suspect, rely on being on the Right Side Of History).Report
I think it’s really to soon for me to say.
The role gentrification plays in the debate is kind of hard to predict.Report
It’s definitely too soon to say. That stipulated I don’t think this will work as a Pete sinking issue. NIMBY’s don’t really like being out front in the spot light and the overarching issue isn’t very clear cut with an obvious good guy or bad guy so I have an inkling that this issue just won’t catch fire regarding a national campaign.
Besides, Pete needs something to last him through to the actual elections and the media is gonna move on pretty soon. I like him and his background but I don’t know if he’ll be able to last. Then again he made a bunch of dough so he probably is assured financial wherewithal to get to Iowa at least.Report
Mayor Pete is an interesting one.
“Religious? He’s a Christian. Atheist? He’s not weird about it. Wary of Washington? He’s from flyover country. Horrified by flyover country? He has degrees from Harvard and Oxford. [etc, etc]”
And by interesting, I don’t mean interesting but that he has a good story. We elect presidents as symbols, we elect them for their story, nowadays, the narrative. Mayor Pete has a potentially good narrative around which broad-ish support could coalesce.
The comparison to Obama isn’t quite that he has that certain Obama charisma, but that as a symbol he’s worth rallying around. And, despite the awesome power of the president to wage war, we don’t really elect presidents based on their Foreign Policy chops or even their policy proposals… but rather, the symbols of the issues we (or some subset/plurality) face (or think we face).
Whether the Left decides Mayor Pete is that symbol, I can’t say… or whether Mayor Pete survives scrutiny as such a symbol (@jaybird’s linked article could derail the story), or whether Mayor Pete is capable of executing the day-to-day requirements of building the symbolic narrative… all that remains to be seen.
But as the raw material, he has it more than most… it isn”t about being boring (Warren) or charismatic (Beto) its about being a vessel of projection.
Or so it seems to me in our fledgling 21st century experiment with mass democracy.Report
Ok, these pundits really need to acknowledge they are getting their ideas from OT. 🙂Report
Bear in mind that Linkerian centrism is a smugger and more annoying version of Trumwillian centrism.Report
Should I? To what end?Report
To lessen the surprise when you find he independently reaches the Ordinarian consensus.
Also, while I doubt it matters to you, remembering it helps me filter out the smugness and annoyance to get to the underlying point, which is usually worth considering.Report
Come for the centrism, stay for the smug?
Sounds delicious… if only I were anywhere near a centrist.Report
I don’t think you’re anywhere near a centrist. Neither am I!
But if you don’t find what centrists have to say interesting, what are you even doing here? 🤣Report
I come here to read the fringey comments about the centrists.Report
From what I understand, “Gentrification” is only a problem in, like, four cities (NYC, Warshington, San Fran, Portland). Everyplace else benefits from “Gentrification” because “White Flight” is so much more of a bigger problem than “Gentrification”.
But the people with their digits on the levers of taste-making care about what they will care about and so we will have to hear about this sort of thing (along with “Cultural Appropriation”) until some new stupid taboo bubbles up from Nyarlathotep.Report
Gentrification, from wealthy areas spreading outwards, is a concern. Gentrification in, say, downtown Pittsburgh, Cleveland, or Detroit is renewal. If I was a cynic, I’d say wait until the downtown urban area actually burns before gentrifying, so noone can (reasonably) posture by calling you on it.Report
So the questions about Buttigieg’s management style are coming in hot and heavy.
In this one, people are criticizing him for focusing too much on easily measurable outcomes, overlooking the problems created in areas that weren’t being measured.
This is a legitimate criticism, and I will need to read the article more carefully to decide how serious it is. Honestly, I’m sort of gabberflasted that a Presidential campaign (or even primary run) is actually raising subtle and interesting questions.
Usually it’s all, “Did this candidate properly consume a corn dog at the Iowa State Fair?” or, “Does the candidate’s position on gun control go too far, or not too far enough?”
[1] I mean, am I really taking this guy seriously enough that I think it’s important to evaluate a guy’s performance as mayor of a city of 100 000 people to decide whether he should be nominated for President? Isn’t that a sign that things have already gone completely off the rails?Report
Fellow members of the Booty Jury, we’ve got this info right here:
It’s a problem similar to why Clinton won and Bernie didn’t back in 2015/2016.Report