Unity2020 should resist the temptation to nominate high political name ID candidates for two key reasons:
1. High name-ID candidates will distract from the overall movement.
2. High name-ID candidates are more likely to carry “deal breaker” baggage.
There’s no question that the success or failure of the #Unity2020 candidacy will depend on our willingness to cull sacred cows from both sides of the political aisle. In that spirit, we have to be flexible around the issues that we know reasonable, patriotic Americans often disagree on. To prove my sincerity and illuminate the importance of that, here’s a small sampling of what I believe are some of the issues that demand flexibility:
· Abortion
· Drug legalization
· Immigration
· Universal healthcare
· School vouchers
· Climate change
· Gun control
At the same time though, we have to be willing to admit when a particular candidate is likely a deal breaker for a majority of center-right or center-left people.
Surprisingly, if you look at the issues that will be likely deal breakers for a majority of center-right or center-left people, they are not the big issues we commonly think of as dividing America such as the ones listed above. Rather, they are niche issues or positions taken that center-right or center-left people have visceral negative reactions to.
We kicked off #Unity2020 with a proposed ticket of Andrew Yang and William McRaven. Without a doubt, these are two of the most patriotic, well-spoken, and bright leaders in America today. I also believe they are both potentially deal breakers for center-right people. Here’s why.
Admiral William McRaven
I haven’t yet seen any evidence that Admiral McRaven is “right” or “center-right”. The only remotely political details on his resume are that he was promoted by President Obama, participated in a very unusual (for an active military leader) Wolf Blitzer-moderated forum during an election year at which he praised Obama as “fantastic”, and he was reportedly on Hillary Clinton’s shortlist for Vice President. Personally, I can set all those details aside because I don’t think any of them mean that McRaven is left-wing or even political in any way, but we’re working with limited political details on him.
What’s more concerning for me and likely others on the right/center right is that McRaven seems to be a classic “NeverTrump” figure. While it’s true that our mission is to replace the current president of the United States, “NeverTrump” or “Trump Derangement Syndrome” carries a connotation that you will oppose Trump even when he accidentally finds himself on the right side of some issue, just because it’s Trump.
In McRaven’s case, this is evidenced primarily by his full-throated defense of former CIA Director John Brennan, whom even far left journalists like Matt Taibbi (a supporter of Unity!) and Glenn Greenwald believe was a bad actor and probably broke the law. McRaven has also published two deeply partisan op-eds in the Washington Post and New York Times defending Brennan and attacking Trump. In the latter, McRaven attacked Trump in part for reducing our military presence in various conflict zones, which he described as “promises” broken.
Andrew Yang
Yang I believe is a true center-left figure who is a casualty of a 2020 primary process that dragged all candidates to the left via ridiculous “yes or no” questions about incredibly complex issues (read more about that here: https://medium.com/@djonesvi/the-mutually-exclusive-society-e2ac82863926). He’s on record supporting health care (so-called “Medicare for All”) not just for all Americans, but all undocumented immigrants currently residing in the United States. In addition to that, Yang pledged on live TV to support whomever the Democratic candidate would be, and I can’t see him walking that back, though I could be wrong.
You may disagree with me that Yang and McRaven are possibly deal breakers for a majority of center-right people, and I admit that even I would probably hold my nose and vote for the Unity2020 ticket under Yang/McRaven, but I don’t believe I am representative of the majority of center right people.
We have to be willing to objectively take the temperature of both the center-left and the center-right regarding who would or would not be an acceptable alternative to Trump or Biden. To inoculate ourselves from these “deal breaker” issues with many well-known figures, I think our ideal candidates should hold about the same level of name ID as the average Supreme Court nominee. More on that later.
Five proposed guidelines for Potential Candidates:
1. Candidates must be drafted
Why? Part of the problem with a 21st century democracy is that it increasingly rewards vanity. Would you agree with me that anyone who actually wants the job of president of the United States is at least a little bit mentally ill? George Washington famously did not want to be president, but our electors knew he was the best person for the job, and he sacrificed his own personal desires for the good of the nation. We need that person as candidate for president.
2. No corporate or union donations.
A key premise of Unity2020 is rooting out corruption, and it comes from both directions.
3. No party platform.
I think there is little debate on this.
4. Candidates are forbidden from endorsing or campaigning for other candidates for any political office.
There cannot be any appearance of partisanship from our nominees. They should stand above and ahead of our two political parties at all times.
5. At least 5 years removed from holding federal elected office.
Five years may not be long enough, but so much bad blood has been created in Congress in the last 12 years that it will be difficult to find a candidate who served recently and somehow managed to stay above the fray.
Why we shouldn’t chase high name ID candidates
Finally, I believe that high name ID should not be a primary consideration for the Unity2020 nominees, and it may even hurt the cause. Andrew Yang has pretty great name ID and William McRaven’s sterling military reputation and speaking prowess would allow him to quickly level up his slightly lower name ID.
I think the number one concern on the minds of everyone supporting Unity2020 is hitting the ground running and getting as much momentum as possible in the shortest amount of time.
A significant part of that momentum will have to come from big name endorsements of Unity2020. Think Joe Rogan, Chance the Rapper, Elon Musk, and so on. So, it’s understandable why these two are tempting as nominees because they themselves grab headlines whenever they do something. However, I believe this is an example of putting the cart before the horse.
If this movement is actually going to have a chance at winning the 2020 election, it will have to be about the groundswell of American support for something different. It cannot be about one or two individuals. Furthermore, I believe nominating someone who is already a known quantity for a significant portion of the electorate would actually distract from the ultimate goal which is not just winning the 2020 election, but ending factionalism in America.
I believe we should be looking at candidates who have around the same level of accomplishments and name ID as a Supreme Court nominee. How many people can honestly say they knew who Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, or Brett Kavanagh were before they were nominated to be Supreme Court justices? Yet, did any of those highly-accomplished individuals have difficulty generating legions of passionate supporters and becoming famous virtually overnight?
The truth is, I believe Dr. Bret Weinstein and others involved in Unity2020 have the connections to be able to be able to put any nominee on the map for a period of time. Our success does not depend on having the most well-known but unconventional candidates. It depends on us. If we have a genuinely organic movement with sound principles, we could nominate two nobodies and still win. If we don’t, it won’t matter who we put at the top of the ticket.
Join the movement: https://www.articlesofunity.com/
