Hard sell
Schultz’s trip to Houston raises doubts.
Does America really need another billionaire businessman in the White House? Probably not. It’s not that being a billionaire, or a successful CEO, disqualifies presidential candidates. But being known for those things and nothing else? That’s likely to put any candidate behind on points before they even start.
That’s where Howard Schultz, the former CEO of Starbucks, finds himself as he arrives in Houston today to get the star treatment during a prime-time town hall produced live on CNN.
The coverage is surprising given Schultz is an undeclared candidate without a lick of electoral experience. What’s more, Schultz says he’d run as a “centrist independent” — without loyalty to either the GOP or the Democratic Party. That sounds like a recipe for electoral irrelevance. Schultz says he wants to fire up moderate Republicans ready to embrace immigration, gay marriage and the like. And he wants to draw in Democrats worried about deficits and debt. There’s plenty of room in the GOP primaries to take on President Donald Trump, and we’re hoping plenty of candidates do. But as former Republican Michael Bloomberg has said, there simply isn’t a viable path to the White House for an independent.
Meanwhile, Democrats are scoffing, too. How in the world, they wonder, can Schultz read the 2020 tea leaves to suggest Democrats want a moderate flag-bearer? Besides, if they want someone to throw the brakes on single-payer health care or taxes on the super wealthy, why would they turn to an independent candidate rather than a centrist Democrat?
We’re not opposed to a centrist philosophy — we’ve long advocated for free trade, immigration reform and fiscal responsibility. But we think Bloomberg was right to conclude there is no viable path to the White House for an independent. If that’s the case, why would Schultz run? Plenty of liberals are furious that he is considering it. They see a spoiler who might keep Trump in office until 2025, and they’re even angrier at CNN for giving him airtime.
We see it a little less ominously: Schultz has every right to run and we’re ready to listen to his ideas. But our sense of the electorate is much different than his, apparently.
We see a workforce increasingly squeezed by the gig economy and dwindling corporate labor investments on the one hand and relentless disruption and automation on the other. We see tax cuts and deregulation in Washington and record stock buybacks and dividends on the other.
For ordinary voters — those who aren’t going to be reassured that Schultz has made his fortune already — the prospects of maintaining personal economic stability are getting smaller. The cost of health care, child care and education keep climbing while wages remain flat.
The U.S. needs a leader who understands economic reality for non-billionaires.