President Joe Biden has done the right thing. By stepping aside, he has set the stage for a fight between two young, strong Democrats and former President Donald Trump and Sen. J.D. Vance. Whoever runs for the Democrats, if they lose it will not be because they lacked the qualifications, the energy and the drive to serve as president and vice president.
The pundits and party leaders have been plotting out the potential roadmaps from here for several weeks. We are in uncharted waters, and we will all have to wait it out.
But whether the ticket features Vice President Harris and one of the exciting, accomplished Democratic governors — including Josh Shapiro from Pennsylvania, Gretchen Whitmer from Michigan, Roy Cooper from North Carolina, Andy Beshear from Kentucky, Wes Moore from Maryland, or Tim Walz from Minnesota — or another Democrat wins the nomination, the Democrats must decide between two different paths they can take from here.
The first is the pro-democracy, anti-authoritarian path where the ticket asks voters to vote Democratic to avoid an authoritarian, right-wing strongman, Trump. This path is based heavily on fear and anxiety and paints a clear picture of the choice facing American voters: Vote for a candidate who will promote democratic values or vote for a candidate who will try to subvert democracy just as he did on Jan. 6, 2021.
The second path the Democratic ticket can take would address the theme of Trump’s authoritarian tendencies, but it would not define the choice as one between democracy and autocracy. Instead, the second path focuses on what the Democrats will do if elected, especially concerning leading policy areas concerning Social Security and Medicare, jobs and the economy, immigration, climate change, childcare and paid parental leave, gun safety and foreign affairs, notably Ukraine and Israel.
The first path risks losing swing voters who are not decided between Trump and the Democrats. A recent Pew poll shows that 32% of Americans would actually like a strongman leader, so denouncing Trump as an authoritarian may be insufficient to build a winning coalition, even self-defeating when it comes to some undecided voters.
A wiser strategy with these swing voters is to focus on the strengths of the Democratic candidates and the weaknesses of the Republicans on core policy issues. These voters are more likely to respond to straight talk about the issues than histrionic talk about the death of American democracy, even if the fear is real.
In the context of American history, the choice facing the Democrats can be framed as one that places either unity and compromise or extremism and authoritarianism at the center of the campaign.
The unity and compromise campaign would be in the tradition of Henry Clay from Kentucky, who was idealized by fellow Kentuckian Abraham Lincoln. Clay served as a speaker of the House, senator and secretary of state. He is widely regarded as one of the most important members to have served in Congress in our history.
Clay was the master craftsman of the Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850 as well as the founder of the Whig Party and the chief advocate of the “American System,” which called for creating a self-sufficient strong economy and strengthening public services including roads, canals and bridges. He was known in his time as the “Great Compromiser.”
Democrats must follow in Clay’s lead and pay heed to more moderate Americans’ concerns by talking about entitlement reform, reducing the number of migrants who come across the southern border and reducing the national debt. They should also not paint a picture of a polarized America. After all, a Gallup poll last month showed 51% of voters did not identify as Democrats or Republicans; they identified as independents.
Democrats can take a clear stand on abortion rights and gun safety, but these wedge issues should not define their campaign.
Trump and Vance will be strident and polarizing in their rhetoric. But the Democratic candidates can rise above their lies and distortions and run a campaign made less for the pundits and more for the public.
Dave Anderson (dmamaryland@gmail.com) has taught ethics and political philosophy at George Washington University, the University of Cincinnati and Johns Hopkins University and is editor of “Leveraging” (Springer, 2014).
