The Debates Were a Mess鈥攂ut Big Progressive Ideas Were on Stage

Amid the Democratic primary debate spin out there, one thing that seems agreed on is this: It was a mess. Putting 10 candidates on a stage and giving them 60 seconds to answer questions about public policy isn鈥檛 that informative. Who knew?

But maybe information wasn鈥檛 the point. Given the size of the field鈥�24 as of this writing, including four who had neither the money nor the polling to earn an invite to this shallowest of debates鈥攖his was probably the best opportunity for some of these third-tier leaders to get a national audience to pay attention to their Big Ideas. At least for a few hours.

To that extent, did it work?

Surprisingly, yes, but maybe not in the intended way.

I鈥檝e long argued for the need to counter President Trump鈥檚 juggernaut of viciousness and victimhood with something equally attractive to voters. It鈥檚 about branding. 鈥淢ake America Great Again鈥濃€攚hich has morphed into 鈥淜eep America Great鈥濃€攚as good marketing for a product that had no substance aimed at consumers who weren鈥檛 looking for substance.

We got glimpses of a promising counter brand Wednesday and Thursday nights. It鈥檚 not so much about a catchy slogan, one not focus-grouped into vapidity (looking at you, 鈥淔orward Together鈥�). It鈥檚 about crafting a shareable identity that can serve as the receptacle for policies, preferences, themes, and personality.

On Wednesday night, Sen. Elizabeth Warren was really the only candidate who owned that: Fight big corporations on behalf of the average person. She may have dozens of specific policy proposals (I鈥檝e checked鈥攖here are a lot), but they all come back to this goal of reforming the U.S. economy and wresting power back from the ultra-wealthy. Her message was unambiguous, and it鈥檚 probably one of the reasons she鈥檚 been rising in the polls, and also why pundits on the right are so nervous about her. They know 2020 could represent a battle between the oligarchical capitalism that has benefited the wealthy at the expense of everyone else and a movement to upend that pyramid scheme.

The wealthy interests have been happy to work in the shadows so that the public never knows they鈥檙e getting fleeced, but Warren鈥檚 been out there telling everyone what鈥檚 going on. She gets it, and that scares them. Sen. Bernie Sanders has a similar brand, although his debate performance on Thursday lacked specifics. His 鈥減olitical revolution鈥� line from 2016 was brought back for his closing remarks, and 鈥渢ake on the special interests鈥� was a common refrain.

While the policy debate did not reveal major rifts among the candidates, it did show how far progressive policy has become accepted by the Democratic Party. If you run down what might be considered the progressive wish list of policy proposals鈥擬edicare for All (or at least a single-payer/public option), addressing climate change, ending police violence against Black communities, stopping endless war, and so on鈥攖he debate stage saw all of them trotted out in one form or another. Some of the memorable dust-ups involved not whether a single-payer national health plan was a good idea, but whether it should supplement or replace private insurance (as Mayor Pete Buttigieg quipped, 鈥淢edicare for All If You Want It.鈥�) Or whether we should provide college education for free or just massively expand the availability of loans and make them easier to pay them off.

No one saw the status quo as worth defending.

During a time when the Trump administration is doubling and tripling down on policies of cruelty, mandating that immigrant children be separated from their families and jailed at the border, the Democrats were debating how quickly they could sign an executive order to end the detentions or even, as former HUD Secretary Juli谩n Castro proposed, decriminalize undocumented border crossings entirely. The frame of the debate is now firmly in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, and even some of the more-centrist candidates on the stage would have been considered hardcore liberals just 20 years ago.

The mainstream media points out how far to the left the Democratic Party seems to have drifted, but they are shortsighted.

Even if a centrist like Joe Biden ends up winning the nomination and the White House, this is the party he鈥檒l have to work with, and the currents pulling leftward are going to be quite strong.

The mainstream media point out鈥攚ith some performative alarm鈥攈ow far to the left the Democratic Party seems to have drifted, but they are shortsighted. They usually fail to note that many of these 鈥渘ew鈥� progressive policies have been kicking around since the days of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Secondly, the only alternative remaining is Trump鈥檚 policy of governance-by-grievance, whose unifying philosophies are what makes Trump and his ilk richer or which disadvantaged group he can inflict more pain on. The so-called 鈥渃onstitutional wing鈥� of the Republican Party鈥攁nd with it, the idea that it could make effective policy鈥攈as been completely subsumed by the cult of personality around Trump.

In the end, we saw progress up on the debate stage. When the most conservative argument emerging from the debate field is to make Obamacare stronger and allow the government to compete with private insurers, that shows we鈥檝e come a long way. We鈥檙e already there, in fact. We just need to take back power.

And that brings me back to the brand question. A clear and shared vision has been slow to emerge with everyone except Warren, if only because she鈥檚 put in the work on the policy end. You can鈥檛 lead the creation of a federal agency to defend consumers against predatory financial institutions without deeply understanding the dynamics of the capitalist system, apparently. I also felt Buttigieg鈥檚 nuanced responses countered the prevailing argument that you need sound bites to win a debate. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee has made combatting climate change his signature issue and nonetheless provides an answer to the question we鈥檇 ask of any candidate: 鈥淲hat do you stand for?鈥� Author Marianne Williamson was able to point out that we鈥檙e fighting against the idea of Trump: 鈥淢ake America Great Again鈥� as a message of hate.

Those are starting points. There may be some coalescing of this over the next 17 months into a coherent vision for America.

Chris Winters is a senior editor at 大象传媒, where he specializes in covering democracy and the economy. Chris has been a journalist for more than 20 years, writing for newspapers and magazines in the Seattle area. He鈥檚 covered everything from city council meetings to natural disasters, local to national news, and won numerous awards for his work. He is based in Seattle, and speaks English and Hungarian.

Reprints and reposts: 大象传媒 Magazine encourages you to make free use of this article by taking these easy steps.

Republish This