The Democratic Crossroads: Stay With the Known or Accept a New Generation of Leadership
For the party of the status quo it is always easier. Who best represents "stay the course." The only complication this year is how to be the candidate of stay the course without mentioning the president from whom you are inheriting the course.
For the party of reform, it is always more complicated. If it really were about who best represents change it would be easier. But there is also the human factor of power. For better or worse not everyone gets into politics to carry out reform. Some seek power, what most people think politics is all about. For those who have had power and seek to keep it or recapture it, they can claim to be for change and reform but they cannot bring it about because there are too many old arrangements, too many deals, too many old networks. They all prevent transition to a new age.
The Democratic party is once again faced with a decision: whether to stay with the known, the familiar, and the "experienced" or whether to accept a new generation of leadership composed of those who have not had power or the experience of governing. If you believe, as I do, that the early 21st century is an age of huge transition -- of globalization, of information, of failed states, of climate change, of rising new powers, and so on -- then leadership hamstrung by old arrangements and commitments will not do.
The contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is further complicated by unusual factors. Her gender. His race. Many women will vote for her simply because she is a woman. Many minorities will support him simply because he is an unusual black-American. That is human nature and to a great degree understandable. But gender and race cannot and should not obscure the larger realities. America is stuck. Those of us who met in Oklahoma City (the "Ben-Gay forum") think we are stuck in large part because of bitter partisanship. But we are also stuck because our leaders cannot see over the horizon ("the vision thing"). They do not see that we are living in an age of huge revolutions. They refuse to understand that we cannot resolve complex security issues merely by changing America's character and making this Republic an empire of unilateral intervention and occupation.
I have personal experience of the Democratic party at a generational crossroads. In the mid-1980s the Democratic party could play it safe and stay with a candidate they knew and with whom they were comfortable and familiar. Or they could take a chance with a new generation of leadership with a new understanding of a new age and new policies and ideas. They chose the former and they lost.
Democrats and Americans are faced with a big decision. Will we play it safe? Or will we embrace the future? This is not a time to put gender or race above what is best for the country or to make superficial choices. We have huge debts and deficits. The climate is rapidly approaching a tipping point. We are stuck in the Middle East. Most of the people in the world do not like us or trust us. Our education system is declining. And the list goes on.
Only a new generation of leaders can solve these new challenges, because only a new generation of leaders is unbound by old policies, old commitments and arrangements, old deals and old friendships. This is a time when America must leave old politics behind. This election is about transition not power. We will either move forward or we will go back.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Much respect to Mr Hart, but he needs to ask his prefered candidate to clear up his allainces with elements of the radical religionist movement, and to make himself clear that he will no longer use those who preach against ANY minority group in his campaign or in his administration. He needs to ask for some forgivness.
With the McClurkin thing so poorly handled, this Party is lucky I am going to vote for any of its candidates in the Primary. If Obama is still standing with Donie and praising the goodness and morality of homophobia, and he's the nom, I just will not be able to cast that vote. Sorry, Gary, but my vote is not owned by the Party. I'd vote against Huckabee, sure, but other than that, a vote for Obama is not likely. Cynthia McKinney might get it.
I don't like third party splitting, but I like voting for those who see me as less than themselves even less.
The McClurkin events let me know much about who Obama is, who he wants his fans to think he is, and I sure am not impressed by a Gospel seen as an excuse to unleash prejudice, not impressed at all. I also learned much about the goings on at the DNC, and the fact is the McClurkin slur was just the tip of the phobic iceberg over there, and the Party has no desire to support any of my issues and in fact is organizatinaly bigoted against gays. So I don't feel that warm about Obama or the Party right now Gary. Always they cut off the best over issues around sex. Sound familiar Gary? Was it fair to you? Would you actually vote for the folks who dragged you down? I think not.
Clinton/Obama '08 is the answer.
OOps continued.....
Obama:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008
Clinton:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00000019&cycle=2008
Edwards:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00002283&cycle=2008
Kucinich:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00003572&cycle=2008
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00003572&cycle=2008
And people: The MEDIA HAS artificially created this contest between a woman & a black man.
I've been a liberated, self actualized woman, since 1973, when I divorced my husband, and wound up running the family business better than he.(he was gay)
I WILL NOT vote for Clinton because she's a woman.
Boxer, Kaptur, Murrey, yes but they are not running! Has everyone forgotten that just a few weeks ago she said she would send Bill & Poppy Bush around the world as her emmissaries. SHe was slammed to the mat by Poppy who came out and said he supports his son's fine foreign policy!
How remarkably "tone deaf" on her part! Naive?
And Obama's reach for non-partisanship is admirable but completely unrealistic. We have people who are in line to go to jail or be executed for their recent crimes; are they and their supporters going to come to the table for a nice little diplomatic chat? I DON'T THINK SO!
John Edwards has successfully fought them in court and WON! The corporations don't want him in there, to spoil their game..........
I for one am tired of the corporations running my life and appropriating my work time to satisfy their bottom line needs!
See who is supporting these candidates........
Obama http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008
Clinton
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00000019&cycle=2008
Edwards
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00002283&cycle=2008
Kucinich
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00003572&cycle=2008
Hart is usually insightful, but to imply Obama is change, is wrong. Just look at who has contributed to Obama. He is owned lock stock and barrow, just as Clinton is.
You want change vote for Edwards. You want status quo vote McCain.
First of all. I'm so happy for you & your husband foxylady, that you are so comfortable with your investments! The fact that your "overlarge" population group, changed the rules mid life and bounced a lot of us elders ( never trust anyone over 30's) out of a comfortable life, just doesn't appear on your radar does it? Many if us were dispossesed during the 87 stock market crash, and the subsequent recession in '90, and have never recovered. ANd the social revolution of the 60's was really OUR initiative, when you kids were still in high school. Joan Baez, Bob Dylan Woody Guthrie, ETC you get the idea, were all PREBOOMERS! So your group even takes credit for that!
I think after Kent State, the collective unconscious arrived at the idea that it would be safer to do a financial takeover, rather than a revolution. Thus 1990 finds all the older CEO's replaced by 40 year old.......who then decided that they needed the 400 % profits we see now, and enabled the right wing takeover........You were too engrossed in your own lives to stop Iran COntra, demand justice then & there.........America has "CREATED" this islamoterriorist threat!
And now you are screeching that the Social Security is in trouble!
I was doing VERY WELL during the Carter administration! Even into the early Reagan administration, until he got really rolling with his foolishness.
Learn to listen to OTHER people's stories.......
How could you fail to note, when talking about "staying with the known" (an obvious reference to Clinton) versus "change" (Obama) that many men will vote for Obama, and not Clinton, because he is a man! You say many black Americans will vote for him because he is an "unusual" black man, but the more important point is that many guys will vote for him because he is a guy. This is "change"?
A vote for a woman candidate for President constitutes a much more dramatic change than voting for a male minority candidate. Polls have indicated that around 10 to 15 % of all male voters think that "men are more qualified to do the job." And as Gloria Steinhem points out in the International Herald Tribune today, if Clinton had Obama's slim credentials, no one would seriously consider her for the Presidency. But his maleness amplifies his credentials, her femaleness diminishes hers.
So Please! Seeing something revolutionary in voting for another male candidate is a stretch, regardless of his minority status.
Yeah close the door on the new energizing leadership, and watch another generation lose interest in civic participation. Its the norm, and pleases the village stenographers to no end.
Instead of the bullshit triangulation of the Clinton machine, set out a new direction like a vast majority of the country wants.
The democrats have to get their lips off the corporate teat, and remember how to lead.
The little picture with Newt and Hillary side by side, says it all to me.
I am bored to tears with all these folks saying that Obama is an 'empty suit'. Start here: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
He has and has had since he began his campaign a plan for the country. DO SOME HOMEWORK.
As to Hillary, she is one of the polarizing figures in American Politics. It would be historic to have a women in the White House but NOTHING would get done. Too much OLD BAGGAGE!
Obama is in the rare position in American Politics to dampen bipartisanship - Hillary, no matter whose personality she adopts, will NEVER be able to do that.
We need the new and different to get something new and different.
If they really want the whole political thing to turn over a new leaf, then they need to choke WAAAAAY back on the corporate sponsorship stuff, and get the People back involved in government. Voting shouldn't be something you do because you see an angle to get yourself an extra 1k buxx, voting should be under the heading of 'civic duty'. Want better candidates?
Get RID of the pandidates. And, straighten out the tax system while you're at it. AND, put a mandatory 'youre FIRED' legal cap on federal spending. I'll wait here, and hold my breath, ok?
LOL
People who vote for Obama do not want change. People who change vote for people with innovative and new ideas: Ron Paul, Kucinic, Green Party, Communists.
But middle of the road politician like Barak is not an agent of change and never will be.
There has to be more to change that empty anorexic talk and a consumer friendly multi-cultural image.
What "huge revolutions"? I think most of the changes in this country happened all at once on September 11, 2001. All were doing is moving with those changes. The Presidents course for the next few decades has been templated by G. W. Bush. Each of the candidates is offering him or herself as the person to fill Bush's shoes and keep implementing those same policies.
Gary I agree and those who would suggest that the additional 4 years Hillary has will not fly far once John McCain stands across from her. She will lose to him. Obama can stand squarely across from McCain and the image will be clear...OLD OR NEW!
HILLARY AND McCAIN = SAMO or SAMO and Hillary will lose, gridlock will remain and the war will go on forever!
IT will do us no good if we have both houses and not the Presidency! Hillary is not electable. Why do you think she is being praised by Newt?
12% of Democrats think elect-ability is an issue in this election...with those kinds of numbers and attitudes we can prepare to lose.
Now Hillary is a nice lady, woman if you prefer that word; however how much hope can we have in January of next year at this time if she wins the nomination and loses the race? What hope do we have...what have we thrown away?
In my family alone who have been die hard Democrats, four of five of my veteran brothers will vote for McCain. If one was not dead it would be five of five.
Hillary could win the nomination...it is conceivable I guess but it is far more conceivable that is she does she could lose the race for the White House! No White House No Peace, no end to the gridlock, no end to the endless war!
Electing a woman is more of a change than electing a male. Get over it Gary Hart, and drop the male bias.
Only a fool can be wise without knowledge according to the book of wisdom. Allow Americans to pick the wisest course for our future. No one allows the "new hire" to run a corporation, why would we do the same with the Presidency and all our fates? Give us a break. This isn't about a new generation versus an older generation - it is about experience to be President.
In 10 years, Obama will have some experience for which we can look at and decided if his words match his actions. I for once can wait for that to happen. Right now, he is all words and no action.
Great that so many young people and old people are participating in this election - double those from the last election. It is good for the country.
But, Americans have been burned once with GW Bush going in inexperience and we don't want to make the same mistake. Wisdom and Prudence - both virtues require that we allow Obama to gain some necessary experience and to demonstrate some accomplishments before we consider electing him for President.
The future of our children is too important to allow an inexperienced candidate to become President.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
