Howard Schultz is discovering that the Democratic Party doesn’t really believe in lower case “d” democracy.
Is Schultz, the former CEO of Starbucks and potential 2020 independent Presidential candidate, shocked by the response of some Democrats? If so, he’s more out of touch with the Democratic voter base than he realizes.
Schultz appears on course to learn just how quickly the anti-Trump cult will Hannibal Lecter-ize anyone who tries to upset the natural order of their political universe.
The whipped cream-delicious irony of the Democrats directing their cannibalistic ire at Schultz is that he once headed the corporate embodiment of affluent, white Democrat privilege; Starbucks is run by mostly affluent whites. Like Starbucks or hate it, Schultz was a master brand marketer.
But none of that matters now. Third-party candidates bring out the true Leninist character of the Democratic Party if those candidates hurt Democratic odds. Democrats are interested in one thing: conquering. This is why I said in the months leading up to the 2016 presidential election that if Hillary Clinton were to win, the Democrats would hold the presidency, federal courts, and U.S. Supreme Court forever (or at least as long as “forever” lasts in a political world subject to contingency and free will).
The bottom line: The Democrats’ objective is to make our nation a de facto one-party state. They aren’t interested in representing or governing; they’re interested in ruling.
Welcome to Politics, Howard
The chief difference between Democrats and most everyone else? Most everyone else would rather be left alone to live their lives as they see fit. Democrats, however, are constitutionally incapable of leaving anyone alone. The politically conservative side is far from perfect, but Democrats don’t want us to “see the other point of view”; they want to impose their point of view onto those who would not voluntarily and democratically elect or choose that point of view.
The establishment does not welcome dissent. When a Howard Schultz or a Ralph Nader (or even a Bernie Sanders, for that matter) seeks to assert himself into the political debate, Democrats don’t welcome him—they seek to impugn his integrity and intentions, doing irreparable damage if necessary. (Though we can’t overlook that the establishment Republican Party took a similar approach to Donald Trump, even after he won the 2016 nomination.)
Social justice, bathrooms for non-paying customers, and overpriced java drinks ain’t the full-contact bloodsport of politics. Schultz, imagining no doubt that he is on the right side of all of these questions, has been heckled and insulted by some in the public and in Hollywood—and this coming from some who would likely vote for him if he actually were the Democratic Party’s nominee! Better make that fair trade espresso a double, Howard—you’re going to need it if you run for president.
Democrats fear a Schultz candidacy because they think he will help President Trump get re-elected. But I don’t quite agree. Yes, Schultz would help pad the stat sheet of Trump’s margin of victory, but he wouldn’t help him get re-elected; Trump would win in 2020 even without a Schultz candidacy. That is, unless the Great Wall of America’s construction hasn’t begun by early 2020—in which case, the Democrat will probably be president. Heck, it could be Hillary!
Politics is sales. Democrats will attack Schultz because they know most of the consumers of their product live in a few coastal states with big cities—places that have been electing super-majorities of Democrats for the last tens of thousands of consecutive days.
Politics is also cyclical. Even though the Democrats have had some wins lately, they did lose more than 100 national contests, and over 900 state elections, in the course of President Obama’s two terms.
If an independent Schultz is on the ballot in most or all states come a month or two before Election Day 2020, the Democrat will need to spend lots of time selling the American people on why he or she is a starkly different choice. That burden will fall on the Democrat because, as with Ralph Nader sniping at Al Gore from his left flank in 2000, a third-party candidate next year will be a liberal’s liberal—not an America-First nationalist like Trump.
The Democrats’ Fundamental Transformation
Once the Democratic Party’s presidential pick is routed in 2020—highly likely, unless Trump fumbles the wall—the Democratic Party descend into outright Leninism. Schultz, to his credit, isn’t oblivious to this next phase of Obamaesque “fundamental transformation.”
If Schultz makes his 2020 campaign official, expect the Democrats to work feverishly to keep him off the ballots in swing states such as Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and perhaps a few others, the way they tried to keep Ralph Nader off swing state ballots in 2004. Schultz already has been targeted by the Priorities USA Action Super PAC, which spent $200 million in 2016 to help Hillary Clinton’s failed election effort. Anti-gun cult leader and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has warned that Schultz will help re-elect Trump. I wonder how many of his billions Bloomberg is willing to throw at the Democratic presidential nominee.
When Vladimir Lenin led his Bolshevik Revolution against the Russian Duma in 1917, it was one of history’s most important political cannibalization events. Schultz may be about to endure something similar. If he runs, then maybe, just maybe, Schultz’s most significant contribution as an independent candidate would be to help widen the continuously growing Democratic chasm.
Our future national politics will be less and less about “R vs. D,” and more and more about America First versus latter-day Leninism. Schultz is not sufficiently Leninistic from the point of view of Democrats, but he’s also not a nationalist. That makes him particularly dangerous to the Democrats; the enemy of my enemy is a precarious political spot to find oneself in.
Photo credit: Joshua Lott/Getty Images