Pete Buttigieg: A Remarkable Candidate
The Remarkable Rise of Mayor Pete Buttigieg
The presidential campaign of Pete Buttigieg, the former Mayor of South Bend, Indiana, was undoubtably remarkable. Pete, a gay man, rose from near total obscurity to compete at the top end of the 2020 Democratic primary, besting established candidates such as Senator Kamala Harris, Senator Cory Booker and Congressman Beto O’Rourke, all of whom enjoyed greater name recognition at the campaign’s inception. Yet, Pete managed to outlast them and others until he too dropped out of the race on March 1, following a disappointing showing in South Carolina and the miraculous resurgence of Vice President Joe Biden.
Pete’s campaign stood out from the others because of the uniqueness of the Mayor himself; in recognition of this, he jokingly retorted, “I’m definitely the only left-handed Maltese-American-Episcopalian-gay-millennial-war veteran in the race”.
At the age of 38, Pete would have been the youngest Presidential nominee in history, the first Mayor to make the move from City Hall to the White House, and, more significantly, the first openly LGBTQ+ individual to clinch the nomination of either of the major parties, Democrat or Republican. His CV is only bolstered further when the spotlight is turned to his non-political endeavours; as a Rhodes Scholar, a former McKinsey Analyst, and a Navy Intelligence Officer who served a tour in Afghanistan, Pete certainly had the credentials to launch himself into people’s considerations.
And that is exactly what he did. Throughout his campaign, Buttigieg evidenced a formidable prowess in fundraising, garnering over $76 million in 2019, with donations streaming in from Silicon Valley to the Midwest, from the East Coast to the West. Electoral success seemed a real possibility.
Victory in Iowa and a close-second place in New Hampshire to Senator Bernie Sanders, a fundraising juggernaut himself, confirmed the effectiveness of the Buttigieg presidential campaign and the positive regard in which Pete was held by the Democratic base. However, defeat in Nevada and South Carolina laid bare the campaign’s failure to reach out and broaden its predominantly white base into minority communities, the lifeblood of the Democratic Party.
Pete Buttigieg’s first foray onto the national political stage came in 2017 with his failed campaign for the Chairmanship of the Democratic National Convention. Yet, this failure did not hamper Pete’s remarkable rise to the upper echelons of Democratic politics.
Behind his rise lie three drivers that, when taken in conjunction, explain Pete’s unlikely success in the 2020 Democratic primary. Firstly, Pete ran on a platform that managed to cloak progressive positions and policies in a pragmatic, quasi moderate guise. Secondly, Pete centred his campaign and its policy proposals on a philosophical outlook and approach to politics, as opposed to one in thrall to policy technicalities. Thirdly, Pete’s own character and the uniqueness of his candidacy propelled his rise further.
Taken in sum, that the campaign of Mayor Pete was such a big deal was paradoxically because it was not a big deal. It was not a big deal that he is gay, strongly religious, nor young and lacking Washington experience. Rather, Pete was taken at his word and recognised as a serious candidate. As such, he answered the question “is the country really ready to send a gay man to the White House?” with little fuss nor palaver: Yes.
Pete’s Take on the Issues
Pete’s knack for couching progressive policies in moderate language and philosophical musings undoubtably aided his stratospheric soar from the Mayor’s Office of South Bend, a city of just over 100,000 , to the top tier of Democratic candidates for the Presidency of the United States of America.
His moderate and considered approach to progressivism separated his candidacy from the maximalist campaigns of Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who both view deviations from pure progressive ideals as a betrayal of progressivism itself.
Mayor Pete’s policy platform was undoubtably liberal and, if nominated, he would have represented the most liberal Democratic candidate for the Presidency of the United States in history. His commitment to introducing a $15/hour minimum wage, to quadrupling the earned income tax credit, and to legislating for a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants are certainly liberal policies in most if not all books.
Additionally significant was his plan to introduce sectoral union bargaining, a move that would vastly increase the power of the American labour movement, granting it greater leverage in its fight for better working conditions and ensuring that large companies are unable to exploit their employees.
Likewise, although a step-away from the progressive ideal of Medicare for All, his plan to introduce a “Medicare-for-all-who-want-it” represented a significant break from previous Democratic platforms — in providing a meaningful public option for healthcare, he promised to directly combat the health insurance industry, and put in place a “natural glide-path to Medicare for All”.
Pete’s reluctance to go for the jugular and run on a platform touting a single-payer healthcare system was both politically tactful and wise. Whilst signalling that such a system is his ultimate ambition, he showed political maturity in recognising that, statistically, Medicare for All costs Democratic candidates an average of 4.6% in swing districts, areas the Democratic nominee will have to win to have a hope of unseating President Donald Trump. Moreover, there is currently neither a majority for such a plan in the Senate, nor within the Democratic Caucus in the Senate, thereby rendering such a proposal nigh-on impossible. Pete’s plan, on the other hand, could have legs.
What is more impressive, however, was Pete’s clear-eyed view of the institutional barriers and roadblocks to progressive policies — and the means by which they can be alleviated.
In recognising the state of play of politics in 2020, Pete, in a manner in which distanced him from the moderate candidature of Vice President Joe Biden, proposed a variety of means to increase the ability of Democrats to pass progressive policies, as opposed to relying on Republican goodwill and the traditional practice of across-the-aisle politics. He recognised that the polarised, divisive nature of politics in 2020 leaves no space for inter-party consensus and collaboration.
The central lesson Pete drew from the Obama presidency, that “any decisions that are based on an assumption of good faith by Republicans in the Senate will be defeated”, reflects the guiding principle of his proposed institutional reforms and reveals his commitment to restructure government to ensure that an electoral majority manifests in a government that can act upon its policy platform.
Pete’s stated commitments to repeal the filibuster, as well as adding D.C. and Puerto Rico as states, would increase Democratic representation in Congress to combat the geographical edge of the Republican party and ease the passage of progressive policies.
More significantly, Pete’s proposals to amend the composition of the Supreme Court reflected a bid to depoliticise the judicial system and avoid the “apocalyptic” confirmation hearings that have happened of late. His plan suggested an increase in the number of judges to 15, with 5 coming from each party and the additional 5 selected by consensus amongst the other 10. Such a reform would majorly reshape the American judicial system, ensuring that the instruments of the law are no longer used as a partisan political football.
Pete’s Approach to Politics
Pete approaches politics from a viewpoint that differs from many other politicians on the national stage, Democrat or Republican; he positions values over policies. Pete’s philosophical framework of values shapes how he views the world and, in turn, crafts his policies and strategies.
Having watched President Trump’s victory over Secretary Hilary Clinton in 2016, Pete penned an op-ed, a letter from flyover country, in which called for a debate about values — a discussion of the values of “freedom, fairness, families, and the future”. That is to say that, rather than viewing Clinton’s defeat as a signal for a shift in policy platform, he recognised the need to return to the origins of policies — the values from which the stem — and ensure that policies always relate to the values held by the vast majority of the American people.
Pete believes that you should lead with values — you can disagree and squabble over the details of policies, but, by approaching issues through a lens of values, you demonstrate your principles. Voters respect values and principles. Indeed, as Pete himself argued, commonly shared values, when presented effectively, often naturally flow into progressive policies — the desire to feed the hungry, care for the sick, and protect the dignity of others all stem from commonly held values.
At his campaign launch on April 14, 2019, Pete made sure that values were front and centre of his stump speech and the policy platform that he went on to roll-out. While others used their campaign launches to propound their commitment to this or that policy, or simply to promise to remove President Trump from the Oval Office and banish Mitch McConnell to the history books, Pete spoke about three key values — freedom, security, and democracy.
Pete used his speech to highlight his belief in the existence of an American majority that can coalesce around these three deeply felt values, values that are inherent and integral to the fabric of American society and politics. Moreover, he framed his commitment to discussing values and their vitality as a reclaiming of values that he perceived the Republican party as having hijacked of-late, saying that freedom is “something that our conservative friends have come to think of as their own”.
Rather than setting the foundations of his campaign in detailed, wonky policy positions, he committed to growing it out of a set of values shared by a vast majority.
One by one, he progressed to illustrate the ways in which each value lends itself to progressive policy points.
A commitment to freedom translates as a freedom to marry whomever one desires, as a freedom to start a business, and as a freedom from malevolent credit card companies ripping you off.
A commitment to security necessitates a security from the disastrous impacts of climate change, a security from a rising tide of white nationalism, and a security that fosters a humanitarian approach to immigration.
A commitment to democracy in an era of democratic capitalism means prioritising democracy over capitalism, something that requires ending Citizens United, quashing the leverage of lobbyists in the corridors of the Capitol, and bolstering the power of labour movements nationwide.
So his equation is simple — form a connection with fellow citizens through shared values, speak sincerely and candidly to the role and importance of those values, listen to people’s problems and concerns, and only then turn to propose policies that are both attached to values and aim to address the issues facing the country.
A profound sense of duty drives Pete’s value-based philosophical approach to politics. Pete’s sense of duty stems largely from his deeply held religious faith, saying, “my faith teaches me that salvation has to do with how I make myself useful to those who have been excluded, marginalized, and cast aside and oppressed in society”. He perceives himself as having a “deep…obligation to help those who are on the line everyday, even if they are nothing like me in their experience”. This sense of an obligation to help where he can is exactly that which propelled him to enter the race, arguing that “there is simply too much at stake” to remain sitting comfortably on the sidelines as the fight to remove President Trump plays out. Suffice it so say, it would have been far easier for Pete to keep to the sidelines of national politics as the mayor of a small city, throwing jabs and punches online and in local media when and where he sees fit. Instead, he felt it was only right to put his neck on the line and engage head-on with the challenges, as he has so many times before.
Pete’s Character
With all that being said, perhaps the single most remarkable impact of Pete Buttigieg and his presidential campaign is the profound impact he had upon those he came into contact with on the campaign trail. The sheer uniqueness of Pete and his campaign was not only trail-blazing, but also deeply moving.
Pete’s personal charisma and ability to tap into voters’ deeply held value systems and beliefs drew many towards him. One of the most well-documented examples of this is an encounter he had with a flight attendant, who said after meeting Pete, “[h]e just made eye contact with me, and I came to the point of tears”.
Another similar, if not more remarkable, encounter came at a rally in February. Zachary Ro, a 9-year-old Pete Buttigieg supporter, asked Pete to help him be brave and “tell the world I’m gay”. Zachary was called onto stage with Pete so they could interact directly with one another. With the crowd of 4,000 cheering him on, Zachary shook Pete’s hand and gave Pete a home-made bracelet to “thank [him] for being so brave”. Pete expressed his admiration to Zachary for the remarkable courage he showed with his question and looked to, through explaining his own coming-out process, salve the worries of Zachary. Pete remarked that, as Zachary knows who he is, he has “a centre of gravity that can hold you together when all this chaos is happening around you”. Pete went on to praise the power Zachary exemplified because, by showing courage and bravery, “you’ll never know whose life you might be affecting”. As Pete and Zachary were joined on stage by Chasten, Pete’s husband, they were serenaded by cries of “Go Zach” and “love means love”.
As an LGBTQ+ individual with a strong religious faith, Pete spoke to those of the gay community who are all too often attacked by religious communities, usually those from the right. Moreover, he represented those in the gay community who are also of faith, a cross-section of society that are often erased from public discourse; he led a campaign that frequently centred its messaging on biblical passages, whilst having his husband by his side. For people of this often forgotten group, to see someone rise to become a leading American presidential candidate and a household name with a husband by his side is remarkable.
In showing the intersections of sexuality, gender identity, and religion in a manner that demonstrated their compatibility, not their mutual exclusivity, Pete looked to turn the page and begin a new chapter in the relationship between the gay community and organised religion. He argued that “[t]he time has come for a more of a religious left to emerge in our country that lets people know that they are not alone when it comes to faith”.
This profound commitment was certainly not without challenge, however, as Pete faced repeated assaults from the religious right. One such notable example came from Rush Limbaugh, a controversial right-wing talk radio host, who launched a homophobic criticism of Pete and his relationship with Chasten by retorting that, were America to see a “37-year-old gay guy kissing his husband on stage, next to Mr Man, Donald Trump”, they would conclude that “despite all the great wokeness and all the great ground that’s been covered, that America’s still not ready to elect a ‘gay guy kissing his husband on the debate stage’ president”. Indeed, he seemed to exemplify a degree of disgust at that prospect, criticising what he perceived as an attempt by the Democratic party to “get a gay guy kissing his husband on stage, ram it down Trump’s throat and beat him in the election. Really? Have fun envisioning that”. Regardless of the vulgar, deprave discourse Limbaugh participated in and, in so doing, tacitly approved, he forgot that fact that President Trump, who avoided the Vietnam draft with bone spurs, would be standing on stage next to a US Navy veteran.
Pete countered, saying that he is “not going to be lectured on family values from the likes of Rush Limbaugh or anybody who supports Donald J. Trump as the moral as well as political leader of the United States”, and expressed his sadness “for what the Republican party has become if they embrace that kind of homophobic rhetoric”.
Whilst Pete himself refused to draw this contrast, it is worth noting that Limbaugh has been married four times, and President Trump three times. Instead, Pete said, “I love my husband” and that “I am faithful to my husband. Onstage we usually just go for the hug. But I love him very much and I’m not going to take lectures on family values from the likes of Rush Limbaugh”.
Where Next?
That is the question on the lips of many following Pete’s withdrawal from the Democratic primary. One thing is for certain, however — following Biden’s commitment to choosing a female running mate, and the pressure that puts on Sanders to do the same, he won’t be the Vice President in the next administration, be that Democratic or Republican.
Similarly, it is unlikely he remains in Indiana. Given his dramatic rise to the upper echelons of national Democratic politics, he has arguably outgrown local politics. No longer the mayor of South Bend, and unlikely to compete in a statewide race — Joe Donnelly, the Democratic Senator from Indiana lost his seat in 2019 after having served from 2013- it is probable that his next endeavour will take place on the national, perhaps even international, stage.
Having said that, Pete could move to a Democratic-friendly state and run for office there, as Hilary Clinton did in 2000 when she moved from the Republican State of Arkansas to New York to successfully run for a US Senate Seat.
It can be predicted with some confidence that Pete will run for President again, probably even in 2024, after gaining more political experience in order to combat the criticisms from his fellow Democrats regarding his youth. Chants of “2024, 2024” rang around the crowd during his withdrawal from the race, signalling the passion of the base he constructed. In addition to a large donor network, Pete was also able to assemble a strong and effective field operation in both Iowa and New Hampshire, the two early-voting states that, more often than not, set the tone for the remainder of the race. That is to say that Pete already has the mechanisms in place were he to run again in the near future.
If either of Sanders or, as seems more likely as of today, Biden are elected President, it is very plausible that Pete lands a role in the administration. There are three roles that suit Pete: HUD secretary, given the housing reforms he initiated back in South Bend; Secretary of Defence, given his military experience, and; the United States Ambassador to the United Nations, given his prowess in foreign languages and his strident interest in foreign policy.
There are no shortage of options available to Pete. He is here to stay.
The only question is, where?
