Pierce: Julian Castro's Story Should Cause the Democratic Party to Reflect on How It Chooses Candida

[mcar]

Julian Castro's Story Should Cause the Democratic Party to Reflect on How It Chooses Candidates
In general, it should make the country melancholy about how we do politics in the age of big money.

BY CHARLES P. PIERCE
JAN 2, 2020

This means that there is no longer a Latino presence in a field that still includes two no-hope white millionaires and a crackpot who thinks you can vibe away your cancer. This also means that there will be no candidate on stage at subsequent debates who reads out the names of the victims of police violence, who points out that police violence is gun violence, and who talks as much about poverty as he or she does about the embattled middle class. All of this should make the Democratic Party wonder about how it chooses its candidates, and it should make the country in general melancholy about the state of affairs as the election season begins.

Castro should have been viable all the way to the convention. (This is also true of Jay Inslee and Kamala Harris.) But the merciless criteria of polls and money worked against all three of them. Their ideas will now get atomized and spread out among the remaining candidates, but that process will be obscured by an implacable, faceless wall of spreadsheets. This is the way we do politics in this country now, thanks in large part to a Supreme Court that has managed to find room in the Constitution for both luxurious ratfcking and outright influence peddling....

His was a righteous voice in this campaign for people whose voices are truly silent. We hear a lot about how the middle class feels that politics is deaf to their concerns. But we know what the boys in the diner think. Castro campaigned in soup kitchens, and in homeless shelters, and in small urban gardens, where the truly voiceless try to get from sunrise to sunset holding desperation at bay with a charity toothbrush and growing their own vegetables. He campaigned for the minority citizen whose guts clench when they see the red flashing lights of the squad car behind them on a dark road late at night, and for the teenager who has to worry about how fast he takes his hands out of his pockets. He spoke their names on the national stage—Philando Castile, Michael Brown, Laquon McDonald, Sandra Bland, and the others—like a sad litany out of a cathedral history. He dared us to say the names, too.

In December, two cases arising from the existence of a “black site” run by the Chicago Police Department came to light. A man named Demond Watson was released from prison and a man named Armond Day sued the CPD. Both claimed they were tortured into confessing to crimes they did not commit. (Day allegedly was chained to a wall and repeatedly slammed against it.) This is what Julian Castro was talking about. Criminal justice reform, Julian Castro said, must also include justice for the victims of the criminals in uniform. This was a brave thing to say. It is still a brave thing to say, and somebody who’s still in the race should say it, plainly and without equivocation. Somebody who’s still in the race should say it as bravely as Julian Castro did.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a30379755/julian-castro-drop-out-2020-presidential-race/

[ancianita]

1. Ah... Charlie Pierce is back to his bangin' self again. A great read. Thanks.

We have to make sure that whoever is the nominee carries the best campaign issues of all the candidates FORWARD to the country without hesitation. Period. That is what Democrats want from the nominee.

[mcar]

2. Yes!

[The Valley Below]

3. Castro ran a terrible campaign based on personally attacking rivals.

He comes out of the process a diminished figure and he deserves to be out of the race.

Hopefully his campaign serves as an object lesson to future candidates of how not to run against fellow Democrats.

[genxlib]

4. I love Charlie Pierce but I don't really agree with this take

I think he takes the wrong message away from the changes that have taken place in the race.

To say all of these candidates should have been viable until the convention is not how it works. I don't recall ever having more than 2-3 viable candidates in it till the end.

In fact, the opposite is true. In an effort to avoid being labeled unfair, the DNC has allowed for too many candidates. I, for one, am happy that they have narrowed the funnel. I think that they have been more than fair to give voice to some really low polling candidates. If they didn't click with the electorate and rise in the polling, that is on the candidate not the process. If we still had 20 candidates, the noise would be hard to decipher as any real messaging for anyone.

If anything, you can argue that the masses of candidates detracted from the opportunities for the real second tier candidates (2-6 for instance). In a smaller field, they would have had more opportunities to be known. As it is, the inevitable outcome is an advantage for the people with better name recognition.

[stopdiggin]

7. better analysis

the idea that we need (or should have) a whole slate of candidates clear through until super Tuesday .. is both untenable, and damaging to the party and it's prospects.

this:

If anything, you can argue that the masses of candidates detracted from the opportunities for the real second tier candidates (2-6 for instance). In a smaller field, they would have had more opportunities to be known. As it is, the inevitable outcome is an advantage for the people with better name recognition.

[evertonfc]

5. Castro like Beto

ran honest, unconditional campaigns but unlike our top 3 are not career politicians. They spoke truth but not in a typical manner that was politically smart.

[msongs]

6. castro couldnt sell himself well to any demographic. he is not the one nt