California Governor Gavin Newsom sits down with CNN’s Dana Bash to talk about the future of the Democratic Party. He says the party should be “less prone to spending disproportionate amount of time on pronouns, identity politics. More focused on tabletop issues, things that really matter — the stacking of stress in terms of the electricity bills and childcare costs and health care and obviously housing costs.”
Can you point to any sources about Buttigieg? I have to admit to not paying attention to him until very recently, when he’s been a voice of reason. I don’t know his history
It’s a combination of two things, neither of which is total disqualifying.
The first is his previous employment at McKinsey. They’re a consultant firm that frequently gets brought in by companies to basically do bad things like fire a ton of people or manipulate prices. Not kidnapping children, but it’s a weird place to work if you’re driven by higher values.
The second is in the 2020 primary he started out with progressive messaging and then pivoted to the role of moderate because Bernie and Warren sucked all the air out of that lane. So it just kind of paints the story that he doesn’t really believe in anything. And with the moderate switch he courted a lot of money from big money fundraisers and spent a lot of time talking about what we can’t do.
I don’t get the impression he’s deeply committed to any ideology. If he saw progressivism as the best way to advance his political career, he’d be progressive, but with the influence of big money and lobbyists, I doubt it’d work out that way. On the optimistic side he’d be an Obama, that talks hope and change and then continually defaults to “practicality” as lobbyists and establishment politicians tell him not to move too fast. On the pessimistic side he’d be a Sinema, who said progressive things in their younger days but then abandoned it all for ruthless centrism.
Can you point to any sources about Buttigieg? I have to admit to not paying attention to him until very recently, when he’s been a voice of reason. I don’t know his history
It’s a combination of two things, neither of which is total disqualifying.
The first is his previous employment at McKinsey. They’re a consultant firm that frequently gets brought in by companies to basically do bad things like fire a ton of people or manipulate prices. Not kidnapping children, but it’s a weird place to work if you’re driven by higher values.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/why-buttigiegs-shadowy-consultant-past-at-mckinsey-matters/
The second is in the 2020 primary he started out with progressive messaging and then pivoted to the role of moderate because Bernie and Warren sucked all the air out of that lane. So it just kind of paints the story that he doesn’t really believe in anything. And with the moderate switch he courted a lot of money from big money fundraisers and spent a lot of time talking about what we can’t do.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/23/us/politics/buttigieg-campaign-moderate.html
I don’t get the impression he’s deeply committed to any ideology. If he saw progressivism as the best way to advance his political career, he’d be progressive, but with the influence of big money and lobbyists, I doubt it’d work out that way. On the optimistic side he’d be an Obama, that talks hope and change and then continually defaults to “practicality” as lobbyists and establishment politicians tell him not to move too fast. On the pessimistic side he’d be a Sinema, who said progressive things in their younger days but then abandoned it all for ruthless centrism.