A weekly window on the American political scene hosted by the Monitor's politics editors.

Howard Schultz: Spoiler or ‘reassuring alternative’?

Democrats condemned the former Starbucks CEO’s announcement that he may run for president as an independent, arguing that those opposed to President Trump need to unite behind one candidate.

/Elaine Thompson/AP/File
Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz speaks at the Starbucks annual shareholders meeting in Seattle. For someone who has given about $150,000 to Democratic campaigns over the years, Schultz is generating tepid, or even hostile, responses within the party as he weighs a presidential bid in 2020.

“Ego-crazed.” “Reprehensible.” “God help us all.”

That’s a sampling of the venom hurled by furious Democrats this week – not at President Trump, but at former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, after Mr. Schultz announced that he is exploring a run for president.

The problem? Schultz says he would run as an independent. Or as Democrats see it, a spoiler, who would have no chance of winning but very well might secure Mr. Trump’s reelection by siphoning critical votes away from the Democratic nominee.

Many were quick to dismiss Schultz’s argument that 40 percent of Americans now identify as independents because they’re more moderate than the two parties – since polling and research have shown that most of those voters, in fact, behave consistently like partisans. Likewise, many refuted his claim that there’s a large appetite for a centrist candidate who is socially liberal but economically conservative. A frequently cited study by political scientist Lee Drutman shows that, if anything, the opposite might be closer to the truth.

Not surprisingly, Schultz’s advisers – who include former Obama aide Bill Burton and former McCain aide Steve Schmidt – pushed back. “Nobody who is speculating about [Schultz playing the spoiler] on Twitter has given any thought to the possibility that the Democratic Party nominates someone who is so far to the left that it guarantees Trump a reelection,” Mr. Schmidt told Politico. “And at that point, the only person who would theoretically be able to stop Trump from a second term is a centrist candidacy of someone like Schultz.”

While it’s true that centrist, business-friendly candidates often tend to be “duds with the general electorate,” notes National Journal’s Josh Kraushaar, there’s also “never been a moment in modern American history when both parties nominated populist disruptors.” If that happens, upper-middle-class suburbanites – “the kind that swung the House from Republican to Democratic control in 2018” – might be open to a third-party option.

“Just like analysts dismissed Trump winning the Electoral College, an independent candidate who could hit 30-35 percent in the polls would have a real shot at getting to 270 electoral votes,” Mr. Kraushaar writes. “If [Schultz] focuses his message on providing competence at a time of growing chaos, he could become a reassuring alternative for a critical mass of Americans in 2020.”

Let us know what you’re thinking at csmpolitics@csmonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Howard Schultz: Spoiler or ‘reassuring alternative’?
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today