‘Fighting’ is a key word in Dems’ campaigns
WALPOLE, N.H. — Pete Buttigieg has a nifty politician’s knack for coming off as a soothing, healing figure who projects high-mindedness — even while he’s plainly kicking his opponents in the teeth.
“There is a lot to be angry about,” he was saying, cheerfully. Buttigieg, the 37-year-old mayor of South Bend, Ind., was seated aboard his campaign bus outside a New Hampshire middle school before a recent Sunday afternoon rally. He was sipping a canned espresso beverage and his eyes bulged as he spoke, as if he was trying to pass off as revelatory something he had in fact said countless times before.
“But fighting is not enough and it’s a problem if fighting is all you have,” he said. “We fight when we need to fight. But we’re never going to say fighting is the point.”
In fact, these were fighting words: barely disguised and directed at certain Democratic rivals. As Buttigieg enjoys a polling surge in Iowa and New Hampshire, he is trying to prevent a rebound by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who has leveled off in the polls after a strong summer, and contain Sen. Bernie Sanders, whose support has proved durable.
Both are explicit fighters, while Buttigieg, former Vice President Joe Biden and some others warn that Democrats risk scaring off voters by relying too heavily on pugnacious oratory, and by emphasizing the need to transform America rather than focusing simply on ending the Donald Trump presidency and restoring the country to some semblance of normalcy.
As Buttigieg has sharpened this critique, however, he has adopted a more aggressive tone himself — a sly bit of needle-threading that has coincided with his rise. Biden, too, has combined language about beating Trump “like a drum” with more uplifting rhetoric about “restoring the soul of America.”
As Buttigieg spoke, Warren and Sanders were holding rallies in which they could scarcely utter two sentences without dropping in some formulation of the word “fight.” They spoke of the various “fights” they had led and the powerful moneyed interests they had “fought” and how they would “keep fighting” all the way to the White House.
Sanders touted himself as the candidate who would “fight to raise wages” and was “leading the fight to guarantee health care” and “fight against corporate greed.” Warren (fighting a cold) explained “why I got into this fight, will stay in this fight and why I am asking others to join the fight.”
For all the emphasis placed on the identity and generational partitions between the candidates, the question of “to fight or not to fight” might represent a more meaningful contrast. “This has been a longstanding intramural debate,” said David Axelrod, the Democratic media and message strategist, who served as a top campaign and White House aide to former President Barack Obama. “It’s what Elizabeth Warren would call ‘big structural change’ versus what critics would call ‘incremental change.’ ”
He believes the energy and size of the former camp has been exaggerated by the attention it receives. “I think sometimes the populist left is overrepresented in places where reporters sometimes spend a lot of time,” Axelrod said. “Like on Twitter.”
Buttigieg’s jump in recent polls, along with Biden’s staying power, could suggest a persistent appetite for more unifying voices. Pundits and party leaders have long pushed the notion that the Democratic base skewed to the progressive tastes of its most vocal activists, especially in the early-voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire. This mirrored what had been a sustained rise by Warren over several months, along with the ongoing struggles of more consensusthemed candidates such as Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey and Michael Bennet of Colorado and a host of others who are no longer in the race.
Polls released in recent weeks, however, indicate the appeal of a more moderate, less combative Democratic message has been perhaps undervalued. A New York Times/Siena College survey of primary voters in battleground states showed a preference for a candidate who would seek common ground with Republicans, rather than one who would push a bolder and less compromising progressive agenda. Warren appears to have lost ground, both in national surveys and in Iowa, while Buttigieg has become increasingly less shy with his criticism.
“It’s definitely not unifying,” he said aboard his campaign bus in Iowa when asked about Warren’s and Sanders’ approaches. If nothing else, Buttigieg argued, he represents a more pragmatic alternative that is characteristic of his age cohort — or at least the part of it not screaming itself hoarse at Warren and Sanders rallies.
“The fighting is not about being at people’s throats,” countered Warren in an interview after a rally in Exeter, N.H. Emphasizing a willingness to “fight,” she said, demonstrates commitment. “Fighting is about throwing your whole self into making the changes,” she said. “The big fights define who we are. The big fights inspire people to come out. The big fights signal just how important this is.”
“Fighting,” she added, is a proxy for the “big structural change” her campaign is promising, as opposed to what she calls the “nibbling around the edges” philosophy. This is essentially Warren’s critique against what she considers the small-bore mindset some in her party embrace.
At the end of her interview, Warren was asked if certain elements of her party, including some opponents, were too content to “nibble around the edges.” She has been steadfast in drawing this contrast but loath to single out fellow Democrats. In response, Warren flattened her voice and assumed a performative deadpan.
“I’m a Democrat, and I’m very happy for all the wonderful things we’ve accomplished,” she said, smiling tightly to accentuate the obvious — that this was not a fight she was looking for.