The New York Times is running a series in which “thinkers, upstarts and ideologues” offer ideas for the future of the Democratic Party. The first installment has a hell of a title: “Democrats Are in Crisis. Eat-the-Rich Populism Is the Only Answer.” That’s right: The only answer. Not “part of the answer” or “one possible answer” — the article doesn’t allow that Democrats might nibble on the rich and see how that goes, or eat the rich with a side of cultural moderation. The author argues that Democrats must divour, digest, and — one assumes — shit out the rich in order to win.
In support of this thesis, the author — historian Timothy Shenk — repeatedly points to one example: Dan Osborn. Osborn ran for Senate in Nebraska as an independent and lost by seven points, which is a good showing in a state that Harris lost by 20 (excuses for which can be found in Harris’ book: Not My Fault: How Everyone but Me Is to Blame for America Not Recognizing My Amazing Leadership Qualities). Osborn has a populist streak, which Shenk argues is responsible for his good showing. But populism wasn’t the only thing that made Osborn unique: He was also culturally conservative (pro “build the wall” and pro-gun) and was conspicuously not a Democrat. That’s huge in a part of the country where the Democratic brand is in Theranos/Enron/Triangle Shirtwaist Company territory. Osborn’s name is also “Osborn”, and I think that some people might have thought that he’s related to legendary Cornhuskers football coach Tom Osborne (he’s not). You may think I’m being silly by thinking that some voters would fixate on a name, but if there was a Senate candidate named Timmy Hitler — no relation! — I doubt that many people would argue that names don’t matter.