Amy McGrath for Senate: a 2014 remix of the Alison Grimes campaign but with more jets
The eternal recurrence and quest to achieve amor fati running against Mitch McConnell
Do you ever wonder why, despite all available evidence, people continue to take actions that will virtually result in the same failure? After all, as the saying goes, history repeats itself. Yet for all the mileage this old adage seems to get, no one ever pays it enough attention.
The whole “history repeats itself” schtick is academically called historic recurrence, which is pretty self-explanatory by the name itself. Empires rise and empires fall in the same way the McDonald’s McRib comes and goes. Friedrich Nietzsche postured his own theory called eternal recurrence wherein all events in the world repeat themselves in the same sequence through an eternal series of cycles.
Eternal recurrence is a main focus of Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for All and None. Nietzsche’s overman (Übermensch), makes in appearance in the philosophical novel because that’s Nietzsche’s bread and butter. Eternal recurrence poses the possibility that all events in one's life will happen infinitely. This infinite loop embraces all of life's horrors and pleasures alike, culminating in an acceptance of fate.
Nietzsche asks us what would we do upon making this realization of eternal recurrence. Would we gnash our teeth or accept it? Would we accept the idea of life repeating itself, with all its horrors, boredoms, and pleasures alike? When the overman reaches this realization, that everything continuously follows the same flow of time, then he can rejoice in a true love of life; achieving amor fati (love of one’s fate).
Today’s edition is about the eternal recurrence of the national Democratic parties/committees as well as the Kentucky Democratic Party and their quest to achieve amor fati.
Alison for Kentucky TV Ad "Skeet Shooting"
The year was 2014. The candidate was one Alison Lundergan Grimes, a Democrat that was sure to be the next firebrand politico of the Bluegrass State.
Grimes was elected Kentucky Secretary of State in 2011 and reelected to the position in 2015. But there’s a sweet spot there in 2014 when she decided to take up the mantle and challenge one Addison Mitchell McConnell for his U.S. Senate seat.
“I’m here today to tell you that I have met with my supporters, we have had a great conversation and determined and decided that we can next make the best move, the best difference in the Commonwealth of Kentucky by running for the U.S. Senate,” Grimes said at a news conference Monday afternoon.
A seasoned political observer, or even a novice one at that, may think to themselves that running Grimes, a relative political newcomer, against the incumbent McConnell wouldn’t be the best idea. That’s not to say that just because someone is new in politics, or completely outside the formal political sphere, they don’t have a chance to win an election or shouldn’t run for office. It should be pretty obvious at this point how not having political experience can’t be considered a liability.
But I don’t believe Grimes was chosen for her political prowess or political experience. Kentucky Democrats needed someone with deep pockets to go up against the war chest McConnell has amassed over decades in office and Grimes seemed the best option because of her connections. One has to also consider the laundry list of Democrats who declined to run against McConnell.
Grimes’ father, Jerry Lundergan, was a well-connected former Kentucky Democratic Party chairman. Before his row in politics, Lundergan and his brother started a catering company called Lundy’s in 1977. That catering business handled “everything from presidential inaugurations—Clinton’s, George W. Bush’s and Obama’s—to papal visits, such as Pope John Paul II’s 1987 trip to Texas.” Lundergan’s rise to political power and wealth has been described as a “rags to riches” story.
Time, however, has not been kind to Jerry Lundergan. A federal jury convicted him and another man of conspiring to funnel and conceal illegal corporate contributions from Lundergan's company to the 2014 U.S. Senate campaign of his daughter. Even before his recent conviction, Lundergan always had a cloud over his head (and it seems that cloud has followed Grimes too).
Grimes and her father also maintained close ties to the Clintons. Former president, and notorious scumbag, Bill Clinton stumped for Grimes multiple times in Kentucky, and Grimes has talked many times of her closeness with Hillary Clinton.
All the pieces were falling into place in the minds of Kentucky Democrats and the equation was simple: someone new enough in politics not to have an entire closet full of skeletons, someone with connections to money/power, and someone who was in relative good graces with “popular” national Democrats and specifically the Clinton family, (Bill Clinton was the last Democrat to have won the presidential nomination from Kentucky before Jimmy Carter some 20 years prior).
Once it was all said and done, however, Grimes lost by 16 points, the second largest margin a Democrat has ever lost by against McConnell. Kudos to Lois Combs Weinberg who lost by nearly 30 points in 2002. Non-sarcastically, really kudos to her because now that I have the chance to learn more about her she seems really cool.
Now here we are again six years later with Amy McGrath and while the people have changed the equation remains largely the same.
A political newcomer who doesn’t have an entire closet full of skeletons, someone with connections to money/power (i.e. McGrath’s long career in the military and defense sector; she’s also a veteran and in recent years Democrats have made it a clear political strategy to put their weight behind more veterans running as Dems), and someone in relative good graces with “popular” national Democrats (truthfully anyone running as Democrat against McConnell would receive held from the big dogs; you could throw Joe Biden here I suppose).
The bad news is the Kentucky Democratic Party and the national Democrat congressional committees still haven’t achieved amor fati because they really just seem to be focused on experiencing the pain of life over and over and over again. One can only love one’s fate once they’ve accepted both the good and the bad, I don’t think you’re supposed to be content with always experiencing the bad.
The problem with McGrath’s campaign is that on paper it’s virtually no different from Grimes’ and even in practice it’s just as full with missteps and flubs along the way.
Grimes was also fond of attending out of state fundraisers with big name Democrats and Democrat donors, she brought in $2.5 million in her first three months in the race.
In 2014, she raised more than $4 million from April through June, which broke a state fundraising record for a U.S. Senate race.
On the first day of announcing her Senate campaign, McGrath raised $2.5 million which was also record breaking and her campaign’s gone on to continue breaking records by raking in millions of more dollars.
The biggest issue of political framing this runs into is that just like Grimes a majority of McGrath’s money came from out of state donors.
A point of order, a majority of McConnell’s donors also come from outside Kentucky, and it seems that as McConnell amassed power over time more and more of his donations came from out of state. In the 2002 election that wasn’t the case but once 2008 rolled around I suspect a lot of Republican donors were getting weary of Barack Obama and wanted to bankroll McConnell’s campaign for security.
Neither of these things is good! It’s not very surprising seeing as Kentucky isn’t a state that’s overflowing with excess money but these are still both very not good things! I’m very tired of asshat Democrats in the national party signifying whose gonna get all the money and essentially handpicking the candidate.
What should also be noted, however, is that even though a majority of McConnell’s funding comes from out of state donors he’s still beating McGrath in terms of Kentucky donors. McGrath’s in-state donors are 4% of her donation base compared to McConnell’s 11%.
Again, neither of these is a good thing! But because we live in a hellscape were money is political speech and McConnell has relaxed about every campaign finance rule known to man it means this is the hellscape we currently have to grit our teeth at.
Also, here’s the thing, at this point it’s just widely accepted and shrugged off that McConnell has this million dollar campaign war chest that’s financed by out of state donors. If anything it’s part of his brand! And try as some might to smear him for that it doesn’t work because Mitch McConnell truly does not care what people say or think about him.
The thing is, if money could just outright win political elections, and Michael Bloomberg showed us while it helps it doesn’t guarantee an outright win, then Alison Grimes should’ve theoretically won in 2014. Again the hellscape we live in etc., having a lot of money makes running a campaign very easy and the more of it you have the more things you can do. While money does not vote it certainly polishes everything.
The similarities between the Grimes and McGrath campaign don’t stop there either, and it’s almost eerie just how much history truly does repeat itself.
In one ad, Grimes used a picture of a European male model pretending to be a coal miner; the ad was made to distance Grimes from Obama’s EPA rules on carbon emissions.
Not to be outdone, the McGrath campaign produced an ad showing several coal miners traveling by bus to meet McConnell to discuss black lung. Several miners later complained they were in the video under false pretenses and even sent a cease and desist letter.
One of the biggest political flops Grimes made was just flatly refusing to say whether or not she voted for Obama. Her campaign was likely just doing what they believed was the best strategic option given Obama’s lack of popularity in the state. She wanted to portray herself as a “Clinton Democrat” (whatever that means I guess) and away from Obama as much as possible. That makes sense but Grimes’ continued refusal to say anything on the matter just made it a prolonged torture exercise.
One of McGrath’s biggest flops came at the very start of her Senate campaign when she flip-flopped on whether she would’ve voted to confirm huge beer lover and alleged sex pest Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Politico sums it up as such “Amy McGrath flip-flops on Kavanaugh vote — in 1 day.”
McGrath told the Courier Journal and Insider Louisville she likely would’ve confirmed Kavanaugh to the court and then once her comments got out into the wider media sphere, and some of her big Democrat donors got frightened, she did a 180 on the matter. I guess in a sense that’s just another record broken by here.
Even their stances on reproductive rights and abortion are practically the same. Both of them have professed of their Catholic faith and have given general platitudes about the separation of church and state and how they believe the government shouldn’t interfere with a woman’s autonomy. Not that any of these nuances matter to a Republican party that will still say that both of them are in favor of abortion up to the moment of birth (one of those bullshit talking points spewed by the right to gin up emotional anger from voters).
Richard Deakin’s Flora of the Colosseum of Rome (1855)
The main issue with campaigns run like this is candidates, first Grimes and now McGrath, centrally posit themselves as “Not Mitch McConnell.” The belief seems to be that because of the rot McConnell has done to the country (which he undoubtedly has) then beating him should be as simple as living and breathing.
I mean, after all, everyone hates Mitch McConnell! His popularity is bad in Kentucky and on a national level! Except he’s almost always been unpopular and it’s never once affected him, so one would think a person could come to a conclusion that it’s simply not enough to just not be Mitch McConnell in order to beat him. Nevertheless!
The past 30 plus years should’ve demonstrated that by now but in the pursuit of amor fati the Democratic party apparatus, on the state and national levels, has no idea how to fully realize amor fati and are instead seemingly content with experiencing horror and disappointment time after time.
At some point maybe we’ve gotta realize that the eternal recurrence of Dems losing to Mitch McConnell is actually both horrific and enjoyable for them. Maybe they’ve achieved the love of their fate long ago.
Losing to McConnell is horrifying because, well, his ideology of imposing his own power upon everyone else is dangerous but it’s also enjoyable for Democrats because they’ve always got a foil at the ready.
Moving on:
“She’s the vessel for all this hatred of McConnell,” says Kentucky Democratic strategist Jimmy Cauley.
Can you wager a guess as to who this quote pertains to? Alison Grimes or Amy McGrath? You’ve got a 50-50 chance of getting it right, but it’s a tough one because it’s so darn applicable to both of em.
The answer is Alison Grimes but I at least hope you were scratching your heard for a minute.
Eternal recurrence. History repeating itself. Empires fall, etc. etc. you get the gist. Just as Grimes was once seen as the vessel that could be filled full of money to take down McConnell so too now is McGrath.
You can’t beat McConnell by running someone who is positioning themselves as a pro-Trump Democrat, or some kind of moderate Democrat/Republican-lite. Even Grimes back in 2014 tried to distance herself from Obama and now McGrath is saying that the real problem is how McConnell won’t let the president “drain the swamp” or do other things that he wants.
I don’t know what kind of person that’s supposed to appeal to! I guess people who support Trump but not McConnell? How big of a cross-section of Kentucky voters is that exactly? Have they just given up on winning over more left leaning voters and new voters entirely?
How can anyone think that having McGrath run as a Republican-lite to McConnell would be successful? I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: when voters are faced with a Republican and someone who’s basically a Republican with a few little tweaks then they’ll either stay home or vote for the evil they already know.
It’s not enough to just be not Mitch McConnell! Contrary to popular belief you have to try and get voters either excited enough to want to vote for someone or appeal to them with policies that actually resonate with them and solve or alleviate struggles they’re facing.
Of course all of this is made exceptionally worse when the two more left leaning candidates who could have a shot at the nomination themselves, Charles Booker and Mike Broihier, have been largely silent on knocking McGrath. Broihier released an ad recently on McGrath’s flip-flop on Kavanaugh but it was nothing really of substance.
To be fair, both of them have an exceptionally steep hill to climb with very little fundraising routes. As soon as McGrath announced her Senate campaign, as we noted earlier, the money came pouring in and it was all but assumed she would be the nominee. Everything is also made exceptionally more difficult when one is in the midst of a global pandemic.
It seems plenty of people outside Kentucky are excited for Amy McGrath but they don’t live here and can’t vote here. So while it’s nice to amass a great chunk of money to run ads and do digital things and all that unless you can actually galvanize people to vote for you instead of being just a cardboard cutout of someone else who’s not the other guy then I fail to see how that’s a winning strategy!
Alternatively, I’m just an uneducated rube who knows nothing of the intricacies of political campaigning so maybe I know nothing at all. But the thing is a lot of other people know nothing of these intricacies either! Probably because it’s just a lot of smoke and mirrors.
In my humble rube opinion, anyone facing McConnell needs to just swing from the rafters on his left. Anyone who ends up winning the nomination is going to be painted as a godless, communist, baby eater who pissed on Uncle Sam’s grave so you might as well embrace it and just come out swinging. You’ve got literally nothing to lose!
The incrementalist approach of a campaign like McGrath’s (and it’s one you see with moderate Dems about everywhere) to vitally important issues like health care offers no real change and lacks any political will and imagination. She says we need to stop undermining the Affordable Care Act (fair enough) but something like universal coverage for every American is not doable because “we have to work with the system that we have.”
Why the fuck do we have to do that? If you’re elected to the U.S. Senate (the world’s worst and most toxic deliberating body which still holds massive power for some awful reason) then just change the system yourself or at least fight for a new system! All these systems are just things we made up anyway!
How could anyone in their right mind look at what is happening right now in the midst of a pandemic with people dying, being charged outrageous bills for even being tested and treated for said viral disease and then millions of people losing health care insurance completely because of it being tied to employment and think that something like universal health care coverage should not only be possible but morally imperative?
It doesn’t matter whether or not it’s possible what matters is whether someone has the will to do something about it.
I don’t think Amy McGrath has the political will or imagination required to beat Mitch McConnell, and I think that’s something that is absolutley needed to stand a chance against him. The people of Kentucky deserve more from someone than simply not being Mitch McConnell.
Empires rise, empires fall; campaigns come and campaigns go; and as the sands flow through the hourglass it sweeps us up into this eternal recurrence as we are all destined to curse our fate.