Tulsi Gabbard's Trumpian Tactics
For a relatively unknown candidate, Tulsi Gabbard sure knows how to make waves. She has drawn endorsements from the alt-right, sparred with some of the most prominent figures in the Democratic Party and taken controversial stances on a number of issues. She has proved so perplexing that the New York Times ran an article on the oddness of her campaign last week. Aptly, the piece was entitled “What, Exactly, is Tulsi Gabbard Up To?” I find myself asking that question as well.
This weekend, Gabbard found herself at odds with former presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. The saga began when Clinton, the former secretary of state and first lady, accused the Russian government of grooming a female candidate for a third party run, calling this candidate their “favorite.” While Clinton did not name this candidate, many speculated that Gabbard was the one to whom she was referring. After all, Russian web activity seems to suggest more support for her than is to be expected for a candidate with little likelihood of winning.
So, Gabbard hit back. Her comments began with this little gem: “You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain.” Spewing a tirade that blended conspiracy and indignation, Gabbard characterized the race as one between herself and Clinton, the representation of a network of political operatives and partners in the media and business who were all too eager to rid themselves of Gabbard’s presence.
In doing so, Gabbard cast herself as the challenger to the establishment—the underdog in the race. Perhaps, it is through this light that we should frame the discussion on her campaign.
Time and time again, Tulsi Gabbard has found herself compared to President Donald Trump. In the words of alt-right conspiracy theorist Mike Cernovich, “She’s got a good energy, a good vibe. You feel like this is just a serious person … She seems very Trumpian.” Certainly, it is not her policies that spark this comparison. Rather, it is her rhetoric and tone that gives her this Trump-like quality.
Gabbard regularly characterizes her opposition as a concerted effort—this trend existed long before her spat with Clinton. Just last week, she threatened to boycott the Democratic debate over perceived rigging. Her primary contention, that she was excluded from the September debates, attempts to obscure the fact that, at the end of the day, she is a third-tier candidate with little support. Her second argument is even more ludicrous. “They're holding so-called debates, which really are not debates at all, but rather commercialized reality television meant to entertain, rather than to inform or enlighten,” she says, as though any political event is more than theater. She, herself, regularly participated in rallies that are designed to create produce sound bites than legitimate outlines of her plans and goals.
It is evident that Gabbard wants to do what Donald Trump did four years ago. Tulsi Gabbard wants to play underdog, make herself seem like the target of some vast and unknown conspiracy. Frankly, I’m surprised she is the only one in this race actively doing so.
When Donald Trump won, he forged a new path for candidates—break with the party. Before he won the primary, many of his detractors were the very people who now hail him as their false messiah. Once his party’s voters provided him with a mandate, though, the others fell in line. Gabbard is likely attempting to pander to potential voters, trying to create a base for herself amongst primary voters. While she has served in Congress for four terms, she has long stood her ground on such issues as foreign policy and the decriminalization of recreational drugs. These stances put her in a good place to employ this tactic. They allow her to play both Washington insider and political outsider. Yet, I don’t believe she is still trying to win. I think that she, like many others in this dog and pony show, is using the primary to raise their national profile, setting them up for more power down the line.
The results of Gabbard’s tactics have been mixed. Gabbard has found herself embraced less by primary voters than by alt-right extremists and Republican political figures such as Ann Coulter and Ron Paul. Her poll numbers consistently leave her with under one percent support. Still, each time she comes out with a new, combative statement, the media provides her with more coverage. Already, her conflict with Clinton has allowed her to gain ground in Iowa, a key state in the primaries.
Of course, Clinton’s assertion that Gabbard is angling for a third-party run does hold some water. While Gabbard has publicly asserted that she will not seek the presidency through a third-party run, she has been approached by a number of activists to do so. Furthermore, Russia does seem to be angling for some kind of expanded Gabbard presence in the election, given its numerous articles in support of her. Nevertheless, there doesn’t seem to be much benefit for Gabbard to run as an independent. For one, she would lose the last goodwill she has with the Democratic Party, putting her Congressional seat on the line. As a third-party candidate, she would also lose. If her goal today is to raise her national stature, this would not be the path forward.
In the end, Gabbard wants attention right now. It doesn’t really matter if she’s running “for real” or trying to build herself up. What matters is that her tactics mimic those of another unorthodox political figure: Donald Trump. She may be the first to do this, but I have a feeling she won’t be the last. As we move into a new age of politics, we will have to see if this is for better or for worse.