Gabbardophobia

It remains remarkable to me that Tulsi Gabbard has not gotten more traction yet in the Democratic presidential race.

I had formerly expected Kamala Harris to become the nominee. Gabbard seems to have derailed her campaign altogether with one choice exchange—perhaps the most powerful sound bite ever to emerge from a presidential debate in the US. While it showed Harris was not really read for the spotlight, it showed Gabbard to be strikingly poised.

Yet Gabbard herself remains mostly overlooked. Despite the fact that, on paper, her positions ought to be extremely appealing. She is a little more moderate than the bulk of the Dem pack; Biden has done well on taking the slightly moderate route. And she is attractively intersectional, to Democrats, as Biden is not. Her emphasis on staying out of foreign wars speaks to a deep current of American sentiment that has served Donald Trump well, and not long ago was key to the Democratic world view.

The only explanation, it seems to me, is that Democrats are almost to a man and a woman low-information voters. They do not see Gabbard because their masters say not to. They follow the lead of their media and party superiors, who tell them who to support. Now they want Warren. Who looks and sounds disconcertingly like a second Hillary Clinton.

This contrasts starkly with Republicans, who bucked the media and the party establishment emphatically in choosing Trump last cycle. They at least think for themselves.

In Canada, I am similarly surprised by Bernier’s lack of traction. He did, after all, come within a whisker of being Conservative leader. His platform on multiculturalism and immigration is, according to opinion polls, in closer accord with the views of most Canadians than all the other parties. I suspect the same is true of his views on price supports, interprovincial trade, and equalization payments. Even if these positions do not accord with a majority of Canadians, they speak to a large portion of them, not represented by any other party. If Trudeau is the government, Bernier and May are the real opposition. Singh and Scheer just sound like Trudeau.

I must assume that, like Democrats in the US, nearly all Canadians are low-information voters, who mostly just do as instructed by their supposed betters.

This makes sense within the larger premise that “the left” in modern North America equals the elites and their acolytes, the professions and the various bureaucracies and centres of social power; upheld by what was once called in Britain the “cap-doffing syndrome.” One loyally comes out to do battle when summoned by the family in the “big house.” While “the right” reflects the interests and views of ordinary people who think for themselves.

If I am right, both Gabbard and Bernier still have huge upside potential as the campaigns develop and more people start to pay more attention.

So what the heck: I recklessly predict that Gabbard emerges to get the Dem nomination, or else end as runner-up. And Bernier comes third in Canada. Depending on a lot of circumstances, but it seems more likely than not.