At the moment it seems that everyone who is not named Clinton or Bush is running for president. And, who knows, that may change, too. But 2020 is in full swing at the dawn of 2019.
Of the 20 or so prospects on the Democratic side, one of the most interesting is Sherrod Brown, the Ohio economic populist who was just elected to his third term in the U.S. Senate. And this in a Middle America state where Donald Trump won by one of his most decisive margins — almost 8 percentage points and almost half a million votes. Mr. Trump is still very popular in Ohio.
So the proposition with regard to Mr. Brown is a simple one — a Democrat who can win in Trump country.
Hence a politician who seemed the most unlikely of presidential candidates a few months ago, including to himself, has embarked on a “listening tour” of early primary states under a particular and distinctive banner — “the dignity of work.”
OK, it’s a slogan. But it’s a good one. It has some actual meaning and resonance.
A Brown candidacy makes little sense in terms of optics or tribal emotions.
Mr. Brown is not only uncharismatic, he is anti-charismatic. His voice is not only not stentorian, it is a mix of gravel and sandpaper.
His overall appearance is not merely rumpled, but disheveled. His suits (American-made only) look like he slept in them.
His hair is unruly.
He slumps.
Sherrod Brown is the Columbo of American politicians.
If he has ever given an Obama-like speech — reaching for the rhetorical rafters and posterity — I don’t know about it.
He’s also probably not angry enough for the Democratic Party of today. He speaks very plainly, very directly, and very calmly.
Mr. Brown is not a hater.
What a tremendous advantage that might be in a general election against Donald Trump, and what a disadvantage it might be in the primary season.
Everything that is likable about the guy, and would make him a shoo-in in a great political novel, makes him the longest of long shots in our politics as they are. He is grounded. He makes direct eye contact. Given his decency and consistency, he’s hard for anyone not to like and respect. He knows government and politics, having been at it for decades. He is even the right age — at 66 neither too old nor too young.
Sadly, probably none of that matters.
The Brown campaign hinges on two questions:
First, do Democrats want to win more than they want to hate on Mr. Trump?
Second, does the country want another experimental presidency or will it want to return, in 2020, to a more conventional presidency?
Of course, nothing says that Sherrod Brown would be a surefire winner in a general election. He might turn out to be another Mike Dukakis — a winning politician in his home state who just does not translate nationally.
But we can probably say, with some assurance, that a nominee who is hard left and strident would have a harder time beating Mr. Trump than someone whose demeanor is moderate and who seems to actually like and respect working-class people.
The country has been trying experiments (the new) since John F. Kennedy. The candidate of change generally has the advantage in modern presidential politics.
Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Mr. Trump were all “let’s try something else” candidates. This experimental instinct was punctuated by LBJ, Nixon, Ford, and the two Bushes. But when the country has had a choice between the promise of the new and the professional politician, it has generally gone for “change.”
I have a feeling the dynamic could reverse in 2020, not among the Trump base, but with independents, working women, and laborers who liked both the Trump style and the Trump message in 2016.
Mr. Brown would represent a return to a more traditional politics and presidency — a politician skilled at the art and craft of politics.
But I am not sure we will ever go back to that. And senators are not well equipped for bruising national campaigns or, perhaps, for governing. There is something about Sherrod Brown, moreover, that seems perfect for the Senate — a rolling seminar where one can play with ideas and not worry too much about consequences.
But, if the country wants sort of a normal guy who was for trade fairness and putting America first long before Mr. Trump was (Mr. Brown wrote a book called “The Myth of Free Trade” back when he was in the House), Sherrod Brown makes a lot of sense.
Mr. Brown gets what has happened in Ohio and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and Michigan. Those states have been hollowed out by the global economy — the economy the Bushes, Clintons, and Obamas said would be good for us in the long run.
And the verdict is in. Globalization wasn’t good for Middle America, the laboring man and woman, the small towns, the auto and steel industries. Not in the short run or long run. It was disastrous in the short run and calamitous in the long run.
Sherrod Brown isn’t popular in Ohio just because he’s been around a long time and can say “shucks.” It’s his issues. It’s trade and manufacturing, stupid.
Mr. Brown could be a kind of liberal Democratic Coolidge — not promising to refashion the country but simply trying to make the government work for the benefit of the people — people who make less than $50,000 a year, flyover people, people globalized into lower expectations and incomes.
It depends on what the Democratic Party really wants and what the country really wants. Sherrod Brown’s candidacy probably makes too much sense.
First Published February 3, 2019, 10:30 a.m.
