No one has to point out the 2020 election cycle is crucial for the Democratic Party. It will be the true test of their appeal to the coming generation. The midterms were important, and encouraging from a Democratic perspective. However, Democrats need to take the White House in 2020 if they are to make meaningful policy changes and combat the results of President Donald Trump-era decisions.
We know Trump is going to run again, and as much as no one in the political sphere wants him to (yes, most of the Republicans, too), there is a good chance he will take the Republican nomination again. No one thought it would happen in 2016, and he surprised everyone by winning first the nomination, and then the election. If the Democrats are not ready and prepared for this presidential election cycle, they will get blindsided again. Then what, you ask, can the Democrats do to win?
The Democrats have to present a stellar presidential ticket to the American population. Not just the presidential nominee, but a unifying vice-presidential candidate as well. Over the past few months, we have heard a ton of names being whispered, such as Joe Biden, Beto O’Rourke and Kamala Harris.
We even already have a few confirmed running: Kirsten Gillibrand, Sherrod Brown, Julian Castro and last and possibly least, Tulsi Gabbard. Almost any combination of these names would be a solid choice to go against the Republican nominee. However, one name on this list would not just be a disappointing and lackluster nominee, but also a questionable representative of the tenets of the Democratic Party.
Tulsi Gabbard, daughter of Senator Mike Gabbard, has achieved a lot of firsts. One of her most well-known firsts is that she is a Samoan-American and Hindu member of Congress. However, I highly doubt she will be the first female president. Gabbard was first elected to the House in the 2012 election cycle while still opposing abortion rights and opposing the legal acknowledgement of same-sex relationships, which was officially legalized a year later in United States vs. Windsor.
Gabbard later changed her official position on same-sex relationships, and now supports them. However, this change was not until shortly before the 2013 Supreme Court ruling, according to Andrew Kaczynski of CNN. Her conservative social beliefs most likely stem from those of her father, Mike Gabbard, a Democratic Senator also from Hawaii. However, Gabbard does meet the litmus test on some issues, such as Medicare for all and renewable energy.
Gabbard’s most concerning deviation from the Democratic norm is her views on international relations, especially as it concerns military intervention in the Middle East. Gabbard has been a vocal critic of American military action in the Syrian Civil War, an extremely complex and turbulent situation on an international scale. She even went so far as to meet with Trump shortly after he was elected in order to convince him to withdraw troops from the region. As a rule, Democrats are not too keen on supporting military intervention abroad, and I am by no means a hawk, but that does not mean the Democratic Party is full of isolationists. 
Especially egregious is the use of chemical weapons in Syria by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. However, Gabbard’s feelings concerning the Syrian situation go beyond simple isolationism.
Gabbard has frequently refused to condemn al-Assad’s rule, and does not agree with American plans to remove him from power, according to Elise Viebeck of The Washington Post. Furthermore, she even met with al-Assad when visiting Syria. Of course there is a larger conversation here of whether it is the role of America to be involved in what began as a civil war, but it is bigger than that now. Here, we have a myriad of world powers.
Those world powers are Russia and the U.S., more regional powers such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia and smaller specific-interest groups like the Kurds and the fragmented remains of ISIS. If the U.S. is to withdraw from the region, they allow Russia to become the chief influence in the region, and effectively determine the results of the conflict. Gabbard’s stance here is clearly against that of the Democratic Party, and in my belief, against American international interests. 
All in all, I do not think Gabbard is a poor politician or a particularly bad member of the Democratic Party. I respect that she has changed her beliefs over the years, like most normal people do. I only offer this criticism of her, and particularly of her views on the Syrian crisis, to say that I do not believe she should be the Democratic nominee for president.
We have other excellent candidates who would do a better job of uniting the base and who appeal to a wider audience, and they should be the focus of the Democratic Party in the 2020 election.