I am a Democrat, not a moderate, a liberal, a progressive or even a Democratic Socialist, but a Democrat. The Democratic candidates must learn to communicate the art of nuance and not treat it as a nuisance.  When Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders nuanced an answer—in the first debate, that they would do away with private insurance it actually made sense if you delve into the details, but they ignored explaining, as a  nuisance.  When Sen. Amy Klobuchar and former Mayor Pete Buttigieg nuance their answers to black voters by saying my past missteps on race were just a mistake, although it may have cost lives, they treat it as a nuisance. When Michael Bloomberg nuances an answer about how his millions do not make a difference, two months after spending a reported 400 million dollars in tv ads, he ignored the obvious as a nuisance.

The details of a program for the American people are nuanced and being asked to read, research and think, is a nuisance in today’s political environment. An inane nuisance cry of “build that wall”  and “lock her up” are easily digestible with a beer chaser by Republicans, because it allows others to do their thinking.  Senator Warren and Senator Sanders sparred over the details and methods of getting to the same place in the South Carolina debate last night. They both want to reach the same destination on universal health care, whether you call it Medicare for all or use some other nomenclature. Ms. Warren made the same mistake Hillary Clinton made in 2016 by relying on the corporate media to nuance her point. She has since taken a step back and is allowing for an optional choice for private insurance, she understood the nuisance factor.  

Like in the 2016 campaign, pundits are more interested in presenting the infuriating nuisance of scandal and misinformation instead of a policy discussion.  Senator Sanders is embroiled in a nuanced policy point trying to explain his stance on the Cuban Revolution and dictator Fidel Castro.  He tried taking cover behind the words of former President Obama but failed to realize that rehashing Obama’s words and relitigating 67 years of Cuban history is a nuisance.  

Michael Dukakis…

In his 1988 election campaign vying for the job of President against then-Vice President George H W Bush, refused to say he would either execute or take the hypothetical killer of his wife into a room and beat him to death. When asked by moderator Bernard Shaw if his wife, Kitty, were to be raped and murdered, would he support the death penalty? Dukakis instead, made a nuanced anti-death-penalty argument, one I favor incidentally, which made him look weak.  People wanted the imaginary nuisance killer to disappear, even most Democrats wanted Dukakis to say, you’re damn right.

If Mr. Sanders is bogged down in seemingly defending a murderous dictator he runs the risk of being Du-ka-kissed.  Senator Sanders could have easily said, comparing my position to Castro is idiotic.  Possibly to his credit, he is bound by a sense of righteous indignation that too often obscures his point. Saying that eliminating illiteracy, advocating for free education, and free healthcare in America is my top priority, is enough.  Invoking Cuba as an example of the merits of his revolution is not wise. No one is listening to nuance just rebelling against what they see as a nuisance.  I hope reading this was not too much of a nuisance for you.

Vote in 2020 for Change.            

Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x