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

As Democrats take aim at each other, some worry it only helps Trump

Paul Sancya/AP
From left, Marianne Williamson, Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., former Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke, former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, former Maryland Rep. John Delaney and Montana Gov. Steve Bullock participate in the first of two Democratic presidential primary debates hosted by CNN Tuesday, July 30, 2019, in the Fox Theatre in Detroit.

Dear reader:

The Monitor’s Story Hinckley is in Michigan this week, along with nearly all the Democrats running for president. Last night, she watched the debate from McShane’s Irish Pub in downtown Detroit, where patrons were filling out “debate bingo” cards amid the wafting smell of buttered popcorn. There were whoops and hollers at key moments, such as when Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said flatly: “You’re wrong,” in response to former Maryland Rep. John Delaney calling his Medicare for All plan “political suicide.” New Age author Marianne Williamson drew some of the biggest cheers of the night with her answer on reparations. (For those interested in Ms. Williamson – who was the night’s most-Googled candidate – here’s an interview with her by our Washington bureau chief, Linda Feldmann.)

I was watching the debate from home on television – and on Twitter. About an hour in, I noticed some Democratic strategists expressing palpable frustration. “On Thursday, thousands of Michiganders will lose their job when an auto plant 10 miles from this debate site shuts down. President Trump promised the people of Michigan that wouldn’t happen,” tweeted Mo Elleithee, a former adviser to Hillary Clinton. “I cannot understand why no candidate tonight has forced it into the conversation.”

Why We Wrote This

In Tuesday’s debate, candidates engaged in sharp exchanges over health care plans, teed up by moderators. Tonight may be just as contentious.

“Malpractice,” agreed Paul Begala, a former top adviser to President Bill Clinton.

Mr. Begala, for his part, also tweeted this: “Donald Trump has proposed the largest cut in Medicare in history. Every candidate on that stage is, allegedly, running against Donald Trump, and yet they have not mentioned it. Not once. That issue alone could cost him re-election. My guess is he’s laughing his butt off.”

It's understandable that outside Democratic strategists would want the candidates to spend less time attacking each another and more time attacking the president. Some of the criticisms aimed by the more moderate candidates at the progressives – particularly on health care – felt like ready-made Republican attack ads.

But at this stage in the race, Democratic voters need to see how their candidates stack up – and, especially, how they differ. Everyone on that stage was unified in their opposition to President Donald Trump and his policies. But there is real disagreement over how best to challenge him. Does this moment call for big, bold change? Or unifying pragmatism? It will be up to the voters to decide.

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

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

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.