Friends and Patriots,
This political development has the
Democrats worried because Howard Schultz will split the Democrats if he runs as
an independent. I do not think Schultz will get the support of the mega
powerful Lubavitch Chabad Jews over Donald Trump, the hero who recognized Jerusalem as
the true capital of Jerusalem and moved the U.S. there.
You know why Democrats might be
jealous. The big story on their side of the aisle in this presidential election
is a candidate, “Fauxcahontas” widely viewed to be both a prohibitive
frontrunner and sort of boring—even by her backers, and even if her candidacy
is historic because she is a woman. Meanwhile, the Republicans have that “waskley
wabbit, they won't see me comin” Donald Trump!
There’s no reason that
Democrats can't have their own Trump. What it would take? Let's look at some Democratic requirements.
1. The candidate needs lots of money. Say, about $3 billion dollars.
2. He or she would need to
have spoken out on political issues in the past, but never have actually run
for office or been seriously involved in politics.
3. This person would also
have donated money to candidates of both parties.
4. Ideally, the candidate should have some controversial comments about race and gender.
5. Ideally, the candidate would have to be from one of New York’s outer boroughs.
6. A stint as owner of a professional sports team would
be good, too.
7. A progressive Jew would be good.
Well,
here for your viewing pleasure is Howard Schultz, the CEO of Starbucks. Net
worth? $3 billion. Check. Political
dabbling? Check. Donations to both parties? Schultz hasn’t
done much for Republicans, but he did give to “never Trumper” John McCain in
2000, so it counts, so check that box.
Unwise comments about race? Schultz’s “Race Together” campaign wasn’t
inflammatory but it was widely panned. Check.
Place
of birth? Brooklyn. Check.
Sports venture? Sure—Schultz used to own an NBA team
in Seattle, so check that box.
Schultz
calls for “servant leadership,” including “putting others first and leading
from the heart.” In your heart you knew Barry Goldwater was right, oh I digress and personally, I have noticed leading from the heart when I get my winter apple
cider at Starbucks, tongue in cheek. He says leaders need to appeal
to civility and humility. Those are just the sorts of initiatives Schultz has
trumpeted. Remember Starbucks’s “Come Together” campaign during the
the 2013 government shutdown? Or “Race Together,” the well-intentioned but
ill-fated post-Ferguson push for a race conversation? check that box. And finally, Scultz is a progressive Jew, check that box.
Well,
the Democratic Party is in flux as the centrist legacy of Bill Clinton
seems to give way to a party enthralled by “Fauxcahontas” and multi-millionaire
socialist Bernie Sanders. Today’s Democratic Party is more confrontational, and
more concerned about economic justice and social justice, and more willing to
pick fights with Trump and corporate America. It’s easy to see why that
direction wouldn’t appeal to someone like Schultz, an executive who sees
himself bringing people together. So check that box for Howard.
Schultz
perfectly represents a portion of the Democratic Party that risks being left
behind in this shift: big-city progressives, who are socially liberal, fiscally
corporatist, and rhetorically sleazy. In other words, he’s the fantasy
candidate of groups like AmericansElect, the failed 2012 attempt to
select a Michael Bloomberg-style third-party alternative. The key word there is
“failed”: Efforts like this always seem to come up short, in part because
what’s on offer is really just an attempt to “repackage”
and conceal the true progressive/socialist/communist Democratic Party platform Can
you say Barack Obama and our big-city progressives fond of gauzy rhetoric about
uniting?
Moreover, politics is extremely hard
work and "newbies" like Schultz are unlikely to quickly master the tricks.
Schultz would bring one crucial skill to a campaign, he has shown he has the
ability to build and manage a huge nationwide network, involving physical
locations, an ability to get people to turn over perplexing sums of money, and
a fan base that is addicted to his
product. check that box for Howard.
The
same is true for Schultz and Starbucks. In his first tenure as CEO, Schultz
turned a tiny company into an international giant by doggedly contending the
world was looking for a $4 cup of coffee. That concept may seem obvious now,
but it certainly was not when Schultz bought the company in 1988, given that
the coffee business in America had been in serious decline for decades.
A
highly able executive in virtually every dimension of his business, Schultz
also innately understood from the beginning that successfully managing his
business depended on successfully managing his story. Long known as an irrepressible salesman,
Schultz has always applied that same determination to engaging the news media,
learning that his willful, winning personality could overcome many obstacles
that would stop others.
Schultz
has always been good at leveraging symbolic non-events into news. Do you
remember when Schultz then famously chose to close Starbucks stores for three
hours to "retrain" the baristas. Simple and concrete, the clumsy
publicity stunt quickly aged.
And
then, after the Starbucks reset, as the business results began to turn
positive, Schultz wasted little time in trying to dictate the narrative. Then
Schultz went on a campaign to save the country from its politicians. He
blended capitalism and activism. He called for a temporary boycott of corporate
contributions to politicians, and selling plastic bracelets to bankroll small
businesses and create jobs.
While some speculate that those efforts reflect Schultz's desire
to enter politics, the more likely explanation is that Schultz is doctor of the
clever spin. Remember Schultz is your ultimate salesman, I wouldn’t trust
my family or my country to this “slick salesman”.
The more he talks, the more scrutiny he
invites, and on the wrong things.
Starbucks
is to be ethical and progressive in its business practices, particularly with
its procurement programs.
But
when it comes to political reform and job creation, Starbucks must be careful
to not flaunt one of the fundamental rules of 21st Century communication: The
louder you talk, the more you are asking for the world to take a close look at
your walk.
And
the company is particularly vulnerable on the jobs issue, where its efforts
have been anchored around the media-sexy bracelet program. While Schultz would
inform shareholders only that the program has generated "millions of
dollars" and created "significant new jobs," the most recent
reports say the company has currently sold $2 million of bracelets, in addition
to its initial $5 million donation.
That's
fine, but it's approximately $58 million less than Starbucks paid
Schultz in 2011. Even worse, Starbucks now employs, 149,000 people, compared with its
high of 176,000 in 2008, the year Schultz returned as CEO. It's one
thing to shrink your workforce to get more efficient, but it's another thing to
hold yourself up as a champion of job creation and ethical progressivism while
you're doing it. I believe Schultz talked the talk but he did not do the walk at Starbucks.
If
the company really wanted to use its scale to create jobs, the most natural and
sustainable way to do that would be by restoring the number of baristas
typically on the floor to the pre-reset levels. That would shorten the wait-time
for customers and keep the tabletops cleaner, improving the Starbucks
experience and brand, which would ultimately pay off for shareholders. Like most of today's corporate capitalists Schultz boosted Starbucks net
profit by sacrificing his people.
While
some people love the Davos-lite concept of meshing capitalism with side-project
philanthropy, it rarely sticks in the real world.
Schultz
has slammed Trump’s tax law, which slashed the corporate tax rate to 20 percent
from 35 percent, calling it “fool’s gold” that wouldn’t help “create a level
playing field and more compassionate society.”
Starbucks
attempted to do just that by giving employees raises in light of the company’s
tax windfall from the new law. But Schultz said his previous criticism, that
most companies would forward the majority of the benefits to their shareholders,
still held water.
“I
didn’t give the administration credit” for the bonuses, “I gave credit to the
fact the leadership of Starbucks did the right thing,” Schultz said.
“When
you’re building a great enduring company, not every business decision should
be, and is, an economic one,” he said, I bet Schultz did not say that when he
cut Starbucks labor costs or when he was the top national salesman!
In 1982, Schultz married Sheri
Kersch; they have two children: Jordan and daughter Addison Schultz. Jordan
married Breanna Hawes in September 2011; their civil ceremony was followed the
same day by a Jewish religious ceremony. By the way, Howard Schultz endorses same-sex
marriage.
THE THIRD PARTY
Before there was Jill Stein, there was
Ralph Nader. Before there was Nader and of course there was Ross Perot.
None of those people won and all argued that the Republican Party and the Democratic Party were
basically the same, and the only way to make real change was to ditch them
both. Each was blamed for siphoning off enough votes to throw the presidential
elections.
These days, the difference between the
parties is starker than it’s ever been in modern times. Yet here comes Howard
Schultz, a Starbucks billionaire who feels that he might be the answer to
American politics, and that he’d run for president as an independent.
Schultz, the former Starbucks CEO, says that he is thinking very seriously about a presidential run.
He
makes clear, however, that if he moves forward, he will do so as an
independent.
Already top Democratic operatives
working for presidential candidates and beyond say they’re worried that the
only thing he’ll accomplish is making sure Donald Trump gets re-elected. It’s
more than just sniping at a prospective opponent; word that he might invest in
an independent run has many of dems clearly worried about how Schultz would
split votes in a general election.
Schultz has seemed to be moving toward
a run for months, with interviews and speeches around the country about the
inclusive policies that he says he pioneered while in charge of the company in
two stints, totaling 24 years. He also talks about his vision of America, much
of it informed by a trip he took to Auschwitz, which he discusses in an
emotional story.
Schultz has called our era “a most
fragile time” and he has said “not only the fact that this president is not
qualified to be the president, but the fact that both parties are consistently
not doing what’s necessary on behalf of the American people and are engaged,
every single day, in revenge politics.” Aides to Schultz did not respond to
requests for comment.
“Trump’s
strategy has always been divide and conquer, and this plays directly into his
hands,” said one Democratic strategist, who was wary of taking on Schultz
openly ahead of any announcement. “He’s Ralph Nader without any of Nader’s
redeeming qualities. What’s his value proposition for America? Make America
like a corporate chain?”As we can see some Democratic strategists are
anti-capitalism, hence the predicament of the socialist/communist Democratic
party.
Democrats aren’t the only ones who see
Schultz as potentially helping Trump win a second term. Bill Kristol, the Never Trump, neocon Republican
who is most active both in media appearances and private conversations representing the GOP “resistance”
to the president, said he wouldn’t support an independent run either.
“One
reason my colleagues and I are focused on a Republican primary challenge to
Trump, apart from the fact that we’re Republicans, is that it doesn’t present any
of the problems of inadvertently helping him by being a spoiler,” Kristol wrote
in an email.
Schultz,
a lifelong Democrat, would run under the
theory that the answer to the political division in the country right now is
moving away from party politics. There’s little evidence to support that, as
people report being more polarized and partisan, devoted to their own party and
demonizing the other. For all the prominent Republicans who say they don’t like
Trump, the president’s
overall approval numbers among voters within his party remain sky high,
according to polls. Schultz would have to persuade millions of them to
abandon the party to vote for him, while drawing enough Democratic votes away
from a party that is energized and excited about taking out the president.
Trust me, Trump’s base is not going to support the leftist/progressive same sex
proponent Howard Schultz once his thoughts and feelings are made known.
And
at 65, he’d have to do that as an "old white man" who’s never run for office
before and has zero national name recognition. It is not good in progressive circles to be an "old white man, they are an endangered species in America"
“There’s
a lot of things I can do as a private citizen other than a run for the
presidency of the United States,” Schultz said last June when he said he was
stepping down from Starbucks. But he spoke in that interview about fighting for
dignity, a topic he was particularly vocal about after the incident in
Charlottesville, Virginia. He also said he’d delayed his own exit from
Starbucks to deal with the fallout from the incident last year when two black
men in Philadelphia were asked to leave one of the chain’s stores.
For the past year, Schultz has been
investing in burnishing his image and strategizing by hiring a number of
experienced consultants, most prominently Steve Schmidt, the 2008 campaign manager for John McCain.
Schmidt has spent the past 10 years on a mea culpa tour for his hand in Sarah
Palin’s selection as McCain’s running mate, which took him first to being an
MSNBC contributor, then to leaving the Republican Party, and now to guiding Schultz’s
effort.
Schultz wrote a book, For Love
of Country, co-written
with Rajiv Chandrasekaran, a former Washington Post reporter
who’s been on staff with him for years and continues to be in his inner circle
planning the run.
Tina
Podlodowski, the Washington State Democratic chair, blasted the idea of Schultz
running as an independent in the press last week. She underscored her point on
Friday in a fundraising email sent to donors, with the subject line “Howard
Schultz could secure Trump’s re-election.”
“This worst-case scenario keeps me up
at night. I want to spend our resources fighting for Democrats up and down the
ballot, not fending off Howard Schultz’s independent bid,” she wrote.
Podlodowski has said publicly she’d
like to meet with him to discuss the presidential campaign, but so far has not
heard from him or his aides, according to a state-party spokesperson.
Bill Kristol, the “washed up neocon
lame stream” pundit wrote that he sees a silver lining to a run that doesn’t
seem to be the billionaire’s intention: “For 2019 at least, the fact that
serious people like Howard Schultz are considering an independent race might
help bring home to more voters, including independents and some Republicans,
how important it is to replace Trump. So in that respect it’s a good thing.”
No comments:
Post a Comment