August 3, 2019

  • “Who Am I? Why Am I Here?”: The 2020 Democratic James Stockdale Primary Comedy Show

    “Who am I? Why am I here?” This infamous career-ending-before-it-could-get-started line from the 1992 Presidential Campaign was how Vice Admiral James Stockdale began his participation in the Vice Presidential Debate with Then-Vice President Dan Quayle and Then-Senator Al Gore. Stockdale was the running-mate of Third Party darling and billionaire Ross Perot, who – before he abruptly dropped out of the race – had been widely seen as a favorite to win the presidency at his campaign’s peak earlier in the season. Yet, one of the most confusing aspects of Perot’s 1992 bid for the highest office in the land was his selection of Stockdale, and Stockdale appeared in the public’s eye based on his opening remarks to be just as confused as the people were about his position on the ticket. Needless to say, NOTHING that the Vice Admiral said on that debate stage survived in the public’s collective memory because of the relentless mockery to which those infamous words were subjected; particularly with the help of Saturday Night Live’s Phil Hartman, who brilliantly portrayed the poor guy as being lost as if Perot had kidnapped him from retirement and lured him into the campaign bus with Naval ship-shaped treats.

     

    This defining moment in the 1992 campaign served as one of the final nails in the political coffin of Mr. Perot, and will undoubtedly be regarded by historians as a blunder on par with McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin 16 years later. For many Americans today, watching the growing – and, yes, it is still growing – list of Democrats vying for the 2020 nomination feels as though we are watching a Stockdale political zombie apocalypse riddled with dozens of desperate politicians trying to explain who they are and what exactly they are doing here in this race. Good luck, voters, in trying to figure this puzzle out. Since the announcements began, the race has seen at least 24 (maybe a few more) “mainstream” public figures enter the race, and only TWO of them have seen the light and recognized just how futile their efforts are.

     

    Now, I am not in any way a fan of opinion polls, which are grossly outdated. The samples taken are badly skewed by the fact that an ever-increasing number of citizens have stopped using landlines altogether and/or screen every call to avoid getting bothered by unwanted/unexpected calls. Younger people are especially turned off by pollsters contacting them, because their lives are too busy focusing on other tasks to take a few minutes of their precious time to answer an automated system’s series of questions. Even so, the VAST MAJORITY of the candidates running for president are CONSISTENTLY managing poll numbers no higher than 1 or 2 percent and that was even after a first set of debates back in June alongside the numerous ways in which a candidate is able to build grassroots support for their ambitions.

     

    And this, the question of grassroots support is the part where I actually agree with the Democratic Party’s requirements for candidates to qualify in the debates. Personally, I wish poll numbers – for reasons just mentioned - would be left out of the equation altogether when determining who gets on stage and who doesn’t, but they feel it can act as an important determinant regardless of the issues with the system. Where they are right, though, is in considering the level of grassroots support that each candidate possesses. At each phase of the debates scheduled by the party – mostly just to help the mainstream media partners turn a profit off of the drama created, but I digress…for now – the party requires that the candidates demonstrate an improving ability to generate a minimum level of excitement as measured by individual donations, donation amount raised, and even declared volunteers. The goal is to significantly reduce the number of candidates to the point where the only participants are the ones who demonstrate their genuine viability.

     

    Of course, this is where the Party seems to be operating under the assumption that most of these candidates are realists who recognize that they will have no chance of winning a primary. The Party hopes that the lower tier candidates will just drop out as Richard Ojeda from West Virginia did very early on after realizing that his chances were very steep and as Congressman Swalwell did almost immediately after his embarrassing debate performance back in June. I’m not so hopeful that they will drop out any time soon, mostly because we see other candidates who’ve recently entered the race and have yet to partake in any debates trying desperately to qualify for a shot at the steeper third round of debates. In other words, we are reaching a point when the Stockdale-ship (as opposed to a clown car) is getting so jam packed full of hopefuls that it is perceived by the lower tier that they would be missing out if they tried to drop out now. In their minds, they can win this…if only they can get on that stage.

     

    But what about the plethora of lower tier candidates who’ve actually participated in two debates so far? Why can’t they see that this thing just isn’t going to work out for them? The reason that most of them are going to stay the course as far as they can is that each lower tier candidate who has had a couple debate experiences without any major mistakes has enjoyed a key inspiring moment at said debates in their own eyes and as reinforced by the praises of their 1%-ers (not to be confused with the uber-rich…though there could be a correlation for certain candidates…hmmm). Quitting the race means giving up on the dozens they’ve inspired just as they were beginning to capture the imagination of dozens more.

     

    Yes, you will see a handful of the Stockdales come to their senses realizing that they are not Dorothy (or Toto) in the political Land of Oz seeking to melt the grand Orange Warlock (I know, I know, but we can’t call Trump a witch…it’s just weird) with their magnificent campaign skills. I suspect one or two of them will drop out in the coming weeks as they see there are no inspired masses, just fields of unattended grasses (ok…I’m getting off track here). The point is that there are too many damn candidates who have no realistic shot at siphoning support from the top 5 in this race, but most of them don’t see this because they are each equally convinced by their minute (rhymes with “newt”, not “in it”) sample size of screaming groupies that their golden moment is coming…after a few more debate performances.

     

    Then again, those candidates are selling their supporters a bill of goods or they are just as easily deceived by the myth that they have a fair shot at anything coming close to 3 or 4 minutes total speaking time in a three hour debate. Sure, they can all go the route of candidates like Bill De Blasio and jump into a discussion uninvited just to take a swipe at one of the top tier candidates in an act of desperation which may get a little bit of applause but more serves to annoy the moderators who then repeatedly admonish them to keep quiet and wait patiently for an hour until they get their next five seconds of infamy.

     

    The truth about politics in America is that it is a side show, a soap opera for the infotainment news media to sell to us in the hopes that we tune into their own twist on the drama long enough for the advertisers to get a sustained wallet hard-on. If they permitted an actual debate where substance on actual policy was discussed and in which EVERY candidate had an equal chance to respond, then they would risk boring the audience at home with real life problems which need to be dealt with by adults as opposed to the promoted showdown of the (cue Vince McMahon’s voice) PROGRESSIVES VERSUS THE MODERATES!! See, real issues and substantial emphasis on the details as well as how our candidates actually compare and contrast is not good TV. It is BOOOOOORING TV and nobody likes BOOOOORING politics when they can just flip the channel over and see the hottest new singing talent impressing an audience of screaming fans.

     

    Our crisis of the Stockdale Primary is just as much an indictment of the profit-corrupted media as it is of the horde of wishing hopefuls more full of wishes than they are of hope. Most of the candidates running would be taken seriously in a normal political setting wherein only 8 or even 10 candidates were running…in a country where discussion on the issues was actually valued. Instead, each of them has unwittingly contributed to the soap opera of American politics as portrayed by the media which loves to remind viewers of the grand number of men and women seeking that highest office. The media doesn’t give a damn – nor do they want any of you to give a damn – about WHY any of these candidates are running. Rather, they want you to be enticed and ENTERTAINED by the fact that these people are running in such a massively crowded field.

     

    Worse yet, the debate format is designed entirely for the purpose of twisting a discussion of the issues into a slugfest. So, if you want a chance to have more than a few minutes of time to speak throughout a debate your best shot at getting a question directed at you or about you is to create a controversy either against a particular candidate or which makes you the issue they discuss. For example, look at the debate moment between Tulsi and Kamala. That was not a random moment which arose out of a broader debate. No, it was a moment manufactured by the moderators after they asked Kamala and Tulsi to engage in response to a comment Tulsi had made in disagreement with Kamala’s handling of Biden at the previous debates. Likewise, all four debate nights so far have featured a plethora of questions wherein the moderators directed the participants to discuss whether they agreed that Bernie was electable, too radical, or to otherwise criticize Bernie.

     

    Moreover, racism is not a missing factor in the format either, nor is sexism. Even with a moderator panel as diverse as the ones we’ve seen with MSNBC and CNN, the questions reserved for lower and even middle tier minority and female candidates have often been about matters specifically pertaining to their obvious demographic. Example: at each debate whereat Julian Castro participated he was largely ignored – even going as long as around 30 to 45 minutes (maybe longer) without being asked to say anything at the latest debate – until the immigration issue emerged and even Kamala Harris became one of a few candidates (including Cory Booker) they repeatedly asked to address a variety of race-specific questions.

     

    Simply put, if you are of a particular demographic, if you are perceived to be a one issue candidate (looking at you, UBI Yang…seriously, man), or if you are seen as highly controversial (coughTRUMPcough*cough) then the corporate media masters will ensure that their moderators bring you into the discussions which will bring out the most entertainment from you. Unfortunately, for the army of Stockdaliens who’ve invaded the planet “2020 Campaign”, the entertainment value of being that guy or girl who is known for that crazy thing will only get you as far as round three…if you are lucky. This is because the media thrives off of the notion that contestants will fall off the train as we hurdle down the tracks. This process of elimination is their own special twist on the same elimination episodes you see in Reality TV shows (THINK “APPRENTICE”, YOU FOOLS!!) and this is because the goal is not to INFORM it is to ENTERTAIN! In the words of that character (Marcus A-something) played by Russell Crowe in “Gladiator”: “ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!!”

     

    I’m fed up with being entertained when I am supposed to be getting heard out by these so-called public servants. The circus act we are seeing today is nothing new, because the media has been serving politics to us like this as long as I can remember, and it is appropriate to cite a quote from a movie about a fighter in Ancient Rome in the context of this discussion, because what we are seeing now is mirrored in history by what humanity has witnessed time and again by empires and lesser societies entering their final throes. The Roman Empire built the Coliseum and put on their brutal games of bloodshed to distract their subjects from the failures of the empire to address their numerous natural needs of survival. The Empire did this so as to convince the suffering masses that they need not rebel against a collapsing system which was still capable of keeping your mind and thoughts occupied. No need to cheer for a revolt when you can cheer for the strong man to bludgeon a lesser man in a massive arena!

     

    Back then, the Empire’s presentation was simple and worked for a time. Now, our various distractions from the cracks in our society are aplenty – more plentiful than any society has ever seen - but they are steadily losing their ability to keep our anger at bay. People – just like they did in Rome – eventually start to feel the pain of the collapse, because it hits them where they can’t ignore it: in the stomach. When people can not eat they can not control their natural impulses for survival, but the question then becomes: what will they do with that outrage and desperation? If the elite have anything to say about it, the people will not know for sure who to blame and will be easily manipulated to turn on each other before directing their ire up at those few at the top pulling the strings.

     

    Entertainment is okay, generally speaking, but it is a popular weapon of despotic and declining regimes seeking to avert social upheaval. We are encouraged daily by our culture to consider serious discussions as taboo or dull. Either it is too controversial to contemplate why things aren’t functioning the way they should or the topic is too boring to delve into. This mindset has permeated and polluted our news media - the modern descendant of the “Free Press” protected by our Constitution – to the point where even our supposed source of “information” encourages us to be entertained rather than informed by way of their prioritization of certain stories over others. With our campaigns, it is never about the “WHY”, but the “WHO” (not the singing “Who”, in case you were hoping for a concert or something) and if the “WHO” are not exciting (er…entertaining) enough then they are pulled off of the stage as if it was by a humiliating umbrella hook around the neck.

     

    So, none of these lower tier candidates may ever see themselves for what they are: supporting actors in the corporate media’s grand political soap opera. The responsibility to demand something better and an end to the waves of distractions belongs to all of us. Additionally, it is our collective responsibility to insist upon a truly fair political process – complete with REAL DEBATES – which will guarantee our ability to choose the best candidates to represent us…for OURSELVES. Together, we can help candidates recognize that they are out of place before they become a Stockdale, but that won’t happen until we deal with the corruption of our system which made a mockery of the process to begin with; just as Ross Perot had made a mockery of the process by choosing the Vice Admiral for a position he had no business trying to pursue.

     

    Tonight’s Conclusion

     

    I originally started typing this post with the intent of offering a thorough review of each candidate’s performance in the handful of debates we’ve seen so far. I’m not sure I will do that review here, elsewhere, or at all. However, I changed gears shortly after I started typing because I wanted to discuss why this process is such a sham. The Soap Opera approach to politics – orchestrated by the for-profit media and sanctioned by both political parties with the blessing of the oligarchs – has meddled with our democracy for decades.

     

    Just in looking back to the 2004 campaign – my first campaign as an adult – through to the 2016 campaign you can recognize how both parties experienced this mess. In 2008, both parties respectively had their own variant of a “Stockdale” primary with a large group of contenders on both sides with about a dozen people vying for the prize on either side. The Republicans did it again to an even crazier extent in 2012, and then we had 2016. The Democrats actually had a serious primary contest out of which the media managed to create a great deal of drama, but where important policy differences often leaked through the cracks. On the Republican side, Trump easily won the battle for most entertaining contestant and ultimately rode this farce of a process into the White House…providing endless entertainment along the way.

     

    If we aren’t careful and if we continue to tolerate this substitution of information with entertainment in our “news” and “politics”, we could see Trump easily win again. Time to speak up and demand better. Our futures depend on it.

     

    DOWN WITH THE STOCKDALES! #NoMoreStockdales

     

    Onward.

     

    #NotMeUs #OurRevolution #TheResistance #ImpeachTrump

     

    Purchase my manifesto, “The Pillars of Unitism”.

     

    Until next time…