I Critique Dave Roberts' Latest

#269: Winners Speak To You
.................
Watching Elizabeth Warren's appearance on Stephen Colbert's late night comedy show (Feb. 26th) convinced me that she has 'it'.  Which reminded me that I was planning to critique David Roberts' semi-endorsement of Warren at Vox (Feb. 27th).

Here is Roberts' argument in outline form, followed by my take (in green):

*We're suffering through a crisis of trust.
* Half of the country thinks the other half has ruined the future.
* But, to reestablish trust, we first need to take some medicine.
* Warren gets this, and has plans that will do things like abolish the Senate filibuster, which will then allow big change.
* Without big changes, the system is rigged against Democrats and disillusionment is inevitable.
* Hope for Democrats means convincing voters that government is effective.  Unfortunately, more moderate approaches will fail because our political system favors rural areas of the country and smaller states--which tend to be Republican.

This sounds plausible, until one asks the simple question: What'll it take for the typical Wisconsin small town resident to vote for a Democratic presidential candidate?

How about a plan identifying what Democrats need to fix the rigged system?  Um, ...no.  Or, instead, a candidate who speaks a language you identify with? ***

What do I mean by "speak a language"?  In the case of farm and small town voters, it's metaphor, primarily, and secondarily, a feel for the normalcy and order of things.  For example, the fact that a candidate campaigns in all 99 Iowa counties is in itself probably borderline unhelpful (speaking to a mere dozen farmers at a small town cafe, rather than reaching suburban voters in a large auditorium), but demonstrates outreach, patience and inclusion.  Touting a 'hot plate' recipe for Tater Tots, demonstrates that the candidate knows what 'normal' is on farm and small town dinner tables.  Unhealthy?  Sure, but getting elected comes before persuasion begins; otherwise, you're talking about big city salads.  

And that's my simple critique: Knowing what the answer is (End the Filibuster!) says nothing to the small town nurse sitting at her kitchen table.  Even if you explain it carefully, there's something missing.  That's because you're talking past her; which, of course, is the hallmark of many a mansplainer.

And, as I've pointed out many times before, achieving the big changes that Warren knows we need is all about having enough Senate votes.  And the more purple and red state Senate races Democrats win, the greater the chance those changes pass.  Which, aside from the presidency being won or lost in places like Wisconsin, is a good reason why Democrats would do well to speak to the average rural and small town voter.

 *** A third choice, which both Roberts and I agree won't work, is Bernie Sanders' revolutionary fervor and pie-in-the-sky dreams-come-true.