The Unspoken Assumptions Driving The Jasmine Crockett Freakout
Inside the mailbag: Gavin Newsom ... James Talarico ... Hotel gyms
Bill: I listened to Ezra Klein’s interview of Gavin Newsom. I was struck by how he sees MAGA and in particular some of its leading voices (Kirk and Bannon) as good-faith adversaries whom with some sort of understanding can be had. Then I had a sickening vision:
Between the national political environment and Newsom’s penchant for attracting attention as well as his good looks it’s not a stretch that he could be our next president. But then, with the political winds at his back, he will seek some sort of peace with MAGA. Because, after all, we have to learn to get along (a theme he kept returning to).
Do you share my vision?
Several people asked this week about Newsom’s electability. I share common concerns about nominating the over-slick governor of the most blue-stereotyped state. But until some other Democrat steals the fighting mantle from him, I peg him as the favorite.
I mention all that because I absolutely think Newsom’ vanity includes moral vanity1, and that he’ll err on the side of bygones if he runs and wins. The good news is that this aspect of his personality, underlined by his fawning treatment of Kirk and Bannon, creates a vulnerability that a competitor could exploit: You do a good job playing fighter on TV, but only out of convenience, not because you have a fighter’s heart. Your real instincts tell you that leading MAGA propagandists are good-faith adversaries who we have to get along with. You can’t win a fight if you’re unable to identify the enemy.
The problem is there just aren’t many Democrats who think this way. Underestimating Republican villainy is endemic in the Democratic Party, and I fear that most if not all Dem presidential hopefuls will be inclined to “look forward, not backward” after the election.
Ben W: On the Texas Senate race, do you have a preference of Talarico or Crockett? Or should we just let this play out with the voters of Texas and ignore the handwringing from bureaucrats concerned over Crockett’s “electability”?
My preference at this juncture is Talarico, for reasons I’ll explain below. But it’s not either/or: I also think we should let things unfold as they will, without clinging to hardened assumptions. But for that to happen, Crockett’s most vocal detractors would have to be more honest with her and each other about their misgivings. Because while there are unfreighted reasons (mine) to prefer Talarico, the only reasons to be fatalistic about her candidacy lie in racial and gendered assumptions about politics.
Here’s where things get tricky: Those assumptions might actually be correct. But her critics are muffling their true concerns, because they don’t want to give them honest voice. They don’t want to get caught disparaging the electorate, and they don’t want to ask an ambitious black politician to trim her sails. It’s understandable. I get it. But it’s wrong to melt down publicly about Crockett (or any candidate) without clearly articulating why.
Let me elaborate.