America, give Oprah a shot
Let’s take a ride in Oprah Winfrey’s presidential trial balloon. There’s no telling how high it might soar. Oprah’s fiery 3-minute acceptance speech at the Golden Globes overflowed with her inspiration, such as: “I want all of the girls watching here now to know, that a new day is on the horizon!”
That was followed by a go-ahead quote from Oprah’s longtime consort, businessman Stedman Graham, who told the Los Angeles Times that a Winfrey candidacy would be “up to the people. She would absolutely do it.” The question is: Do what? In the modern era, successful presidential campaigns have largely been a reaction to specific problems that were created or left unsolved by the previous administration.
As a junior high school student, I vividly remember how the criminality and disgrace of Nixon’s Watergate scandal opened the door to Jimmy Carter, a parttime Sunday school teacher whose 1976 campaign book was pointedly titled “I’ll Never Lie to You.”
The economic malaise of the Carter years gave Ronald Reagan a winning argument captured in a reasonable, devastating question to the public in the 1980 presidential debate: “Are you better off than you were four years ago?”
And so on down the line. The lies and immoral conduct that culminated in the impeachment of Bill Clinton led the country in the direction of President George W. Bush, who promised to “restore honor and dignity” to the Oval Office.
Bush’s passionate but bumbling personal style and disastrous invasion of Iraq after 9/11 nudged the nation toward the cerebral charisma of Barack Obama and his promise to bring the troops home.
And Donald Trump built his candidacy on the politics of resentment and racial backlash, launching his campaign on the foundational lie of birtherism and later extending the divisiveness to immigrants and Muslims.
Taking back the White House will require the Democrats to decide which of President Trump’s policies or personal qualities voters are most likely to reject in 2020.
If the winning case against Trump is based on his policies, then the most effective Democratic opponent would be a political warrior with a track record of battling in the trenches for Obamacare, moderate judges, family-based immigration and pro-consumer regulation of business.
Think candidates like Sens. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker and Kamala Harris.
But others believe the core problem with Trump is his lack of public-sector experience and personal inability to fully understand and direct a sprawling, complex government with its multiple legal and political checks and balances.
If a would-be Trump-killer needs to radiate competence and experience, that gives the edge to potential Democratic candidates like Gov. Andrew Cuomo, ex-Gov. Terry McAuliffe, or mayors like Mitch Landrieu of New Orleans, Eric Garcetti of Los Angeles, Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., or — yes — Bill de Blasio of New York. Where would Winfrey fit in? If the nation decides the main problem with Trump is his vulgarity, dishonesty, petty name-calling and demonstrated lack of respect for women, Oprah is a near-perfect foil. In the words of the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune, her hometown paper: “In an empathy contest, Winfrey would defeat Trump in a landslide.”
Empathy alone won’t do it. Winfrey will need to remind us of the advocacy that led to her standing next to President Clinton as he signed the 1993 National Child Protection Act, nicknamed “the Oprah bill,” that created a federal database of child abusers.
Her work exposing puppy mills, and the Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for girls she opened in South Africa, are worth discussing. Ditto for her philanthropy — in 2012, Forbes estimated she had given away $400 million for housing, education and culture.
Oprah’s wealth not only matches (and probably exceeds) Trump’s; how she made the money points to a fundamental difference in values. Everything about Oprah’s commercial success radiates inclusiveness: She not only became a billionaire, she helped make stars out of Dr. Phil, Dr. Oz and countless authors that she turned into bestsellers, a sharp contrast with the Trump record of litigation around dubious schemes like Trump University and the harsh televised Darwinian struggles depicted on “The Apprentice.”
Which way America should turn is a national debate worth having. We could do much worse than have the discussion sparked and led by one of the best interviewers in television history.