The past 24 hours have been an unmitigated disaster for Ralph Northam’s campaign, as outlet after outlet follows The Republican Standard’s reporting on Northam’s mind-boggling decision to remove running mate Justin Fairfax from Northam’s literature — all at the behest of a powerful pipefitters union which gave him nearly $600,000.
Northam’s blunder is of such magnitude that even the influential left-wing digital journal Think Progress stopped carrying his water and criticized Northam instead.
Fairfax had already discussed the incident with Northam the Tuesday before – a conversation which failed to bury the hatchet and left Fairfax feeling the need to send a public message to Northam in his Wednesday interview.
One really cannot blame progressives for doing being critical of Northam and Herring and lending sympathy to Fairfax at this rate. Among Republicans, the decision to delete the black rising star from pamphlets has elicited genuine shock to say the least — that is, until we talk to Democratic activists and political consultants across the aisle and get to the bottom of the long-standing feud between Justin Fairfax and the Democratic establishment class.
Indeed, progressive activists were quick to accuse Northam of “subtle racism” as the controversy spread to the Washington Post, where Fairfax condemned his running mate’s decision and aired Democratic dirty laundry for all the world to see.
Fairfax placed his knife well, refusing to carry any more of Northam’s water than was aptly deserved: “Everyone who is looking at this will make their own judgments about this particular instance,” said Fairfax, in a Wednesday interview with the Washington Post’s Fenit Nirappil. “This should not have happened, and it should not happen again, and there needs to be robust investment in making sure that we are communicating with African American voters and we are engaging our base.”
One cannot agree more wholeheartedly. Set politics aside — Justin Fairfax’s maltreatment at the hands of his own party only speaks to the widely felt mistrust within quarters of the Democratic Party’s various coalition partners. When a special interest can make a demand and have the top of the ticket comply? That’s not just concerning from an ethics perspective; one has to question the culture of the Virginia Democratic Party writ large.
Curiously though (and missed by many thus far), according to insiders and ferreted out by the Washington Post, Fairfax had already discussed the incident with Northam the Tuesday before – a conversation which failed to bury the hatchet and left Fairfax feeling the need to send a public message to Northam in his Wednesday interview.
A little friction is normal within every ticket. What is abnormal is allowing that friction to boil over in such a public manner — especially when the turmoil could have been overtly prevented with a simple demonstration of backbone from the Northam campaign.
If the Democratic ticket were unified and if Northam’s decision to erase Fairfax were a non-issue, as a Northam spokesman has absurdly claimed in what TRS has counted as CYA Method #4, then there was no need for Fairfax to publicly air Democratic grievances on Wednesday — that is, if a conversation between the candidates supposedly fixed things on Tuesday.
Let’s break down Fairfax’s parsing on Northam piece by piece and consider what he is communicating through his words — and more importantly, through his choice to say anything at all.
Fairfax Doesn’t Discourage Accusations of Racism
Let’s begin with Fairfax’s open shot regarding whether the flyers themselves had a racial overtone from Northam, stating with Disraeli-like aplomb, “Everyone who is looking at this will make their own judgments about this particular instance.”
Earlier today, Collective PAC — a progressive activist group which endorsed Fairfax — openly blasted Northam’s choice.
“This is the type of typical but subtle racism black candidates face from both sides of the aisle, and frankly I tired of it,” wrote Collective PAC in a message to supporters, while asking for money to support Fairfax’s campaign.
“It is sad, disturbing and disheartening that efforts to elect democrats led by progressive partners would intentionally exclude the only black candidate on the statewide ticket, esp. when black voters were so critical to democrats winning statewide 4 years ago,” the group continued.
Fairfax’s comments about everyone making their “own judgments” may sound observational and detached — but it isn’t.
…and Fairfax could have unequivocally told his supporters not to perceive Northam’s decision as racially motivated — yet he didn’t.
Instead, Fairfax chose not to correct the perceptions of those who did see “subtle racism” by suggesting that their judgments were their own.
“You can’t simply say because it doesn’t affect you it doesn’t affect anyone else,” said Fairfax, at the first LG debate, when he argued in support of his position that historic statues could be “psychologically harmful” to people with certain perspectives and lived experiences.
Catch that? At best, Fairfax said those angered at the appearance of “subtle racism” are not wrong to feel that way, even if Fairfax himself didn’t go so far as to call it racism. A fairly standard “social justice” argument, to be sure, though anyone not yet “woke” might miss it at first glance.
Fairfax Delivers an Ultimatum to Northam
So here’s where things get interesting.
Fairfax continued his Wednesday interview by saying, “This should not have happened, and it should not happen again, and there needs to be robust investment in making sure that we are communicating with African American voters and we are engaging our base.”
If that doesn’t sound like an ultimatum to the Democratic Party of Virginia, I would like to read what one does look like. Once again, if there is no disunity, then there is no reason to deliver a line like that on the Wednesday after the candidates spoke on Tuesday.
Instead, Fairfax publicly rebuked Northam and delivered a very clear warning: don’t ever do this again, or you will lose the African-American turnout you need to win.
Fairfax found himself excluded from the literature, according to a spokesman for Northam, because of his inflexible position against the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, the Mountain Valley Pipeline, and any other pipeline carrying clean natural gas from West Virginia — regardless of the route.
Fairfax has also found himself on the wrong side of a socialized medicine program, as well as flirted with the idea of firearm confiscation — a wildly unpopular idea that certain firearms should be corrosively taken away from those who already own them.
What is clear is that Fairfax’s inexperience and far-left views have made both Northam and Herring highly uncomfortable with Fairfax as a ticket mate — parallels to E.W. Jackson’s campaign for the same office in 2013 where Northam (in)famously refused to shake Jackson’s hand after a television debate.
If Fairfax is indeed being perceived by Democratic power brokers as a boat anchor to his own ticket, then the fissures are indeed wider than earlier perceived by outside observers.
Earlier this month, Jeff Schapiro suggested Fairfax was a weak candidate who needed Northam to win by five points or more to stand any chance of election. Schapiro — whose instantly recognizable prose and ability to cut straight to the heart of Virginia matters — may have observed the first dead canary within the coal mine. Other Virginia pundits had to wait a week or so before finding dead canaries scattered across the Democratic floor.
Yet the first job of any “weak sister” in General Assembly parlance or boat anchor is possessing the survival instinct to convince his shipmates not to cut him loose and throw him overboard. As a prosecutor, Fairfax brings the additional leverage that neither Northam nor Herring have been able to bring to their moribund campaigns — the ability to make an argument.
Arguably, Northam and Herring would stand a much better chance of election by cutting Fairfax loose and competing for the Democratic money he stands to waste in his race against Jill Vogel. Arguably, both candidates have shown a proclivity to make such a decision in a vacuum — which explains with greater insight why Fairfax chose his words precisely in his interview to the Washington Post.
Of course, Fairfax can’t afford for that to happen — which is why he went on the record Wednesday to deliver a public ultimatum to the Northam campaign following their private conversation on Tuesday.
In short, what we have here is a Justin Fairfax far more savvy than either Northam or Herring anticipated. Fairfax has been thrice-screwed by the Democratic establishment. First when the Democrats refused to let him speak before their 2016 state convention, second when Democratic members of the Virginia General Assembly failed to rally to the standard after a debate performance where Vogel called into question Fairfax’s experience with the legislature.
Once is happenstance. Twice, a coincidence. The third time? Is enemy action — and Farifax (and other black progressives) are rightly fed up, and ought to be.
For all the protestations by the Washington Post about disunity on the Republican side of the fence, Democratic unity has been irrevocably shattered for the remainder of the cycle — and perhaps for the next eight years and beyond.
After all, Fairfax is a young man at 38. He’s not going anywhere.
