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
It is certainly an important time for prominent Democrats from the 1970's and 1980's to be visible as the primary process continues.
The Comment posts in response to the interesting article by Gary Hart are thought-provoking. I am often suspicious of the term "change" when it is used freely. All of the Democratic candidates are representative of the Democratic platform. This is the foundation of the party and its appeal to the broadbase of both baby-boomers and the younger voters. What does the term "change" mean?
With the election of a Democratic President and a Democratic majority in congress, which hopefully will remain intact, there will be an obvious revamping of our nation's political priorities for education, healthcare, military, and international policies.
The term "change" prompts me to think of dangerous ideology and promulgation of an underlying divisiveness, and agitation. The American Republic has a two-party system with political options for independents. As a liberal Democrat, I do not question the government and our Republic which is based on strong principles in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Too often, I hear negative political comments which amount to subversive agitation about "our government". It is not the government, but the misuse of government and our military by the current administration. Election of an experienced Democrat who can transition the nation effectively is truly what is needed.
Hillary Clinton is now the only Democratic candidate continuing in the primaries who has long-term experience in the Democratic party.
I have found her website to be extremely useful in answering questions about her position on various issues.
Lastly, on the American political chessboard, look into the future and ask what moves the Bush, Cheney, evangelical, neo-con, and mormon factions would utilize if an inexperienced and unproven candidate such as Obama is elected in 2008. Experienced, Democratic Senator/Governors have been moved off the chessboard with just two major primaries completed. This is the early effect of the "term" change, and its rhetorical influence.
It will be difficult indeed for the general population to shake loose the politics of fear that has prevailed since 2001, but I think it is yearning to do so. The Administration has constantly hammered this fear theme on our psyches, and the major media outlets have mostly amplified the Administration’s message without critique. We need new leadership that will change the message, and prompt the country to dig deep, to look hard at where we have come from, where we are, and where we want to go. I think this is a key element of enlightened leadership, to define a positive vision, framed in the context of current times, and provide a roadmap to that future. It feels as if these have been dark times. My hope is that America can reach a new dawn and shed the darkness. It won’t come on it’s own. We have to make the individual choices, and follow thru with individual actions that carry us toward that goal. Then, collectively, we may see the light and realize the hopes and dreams we have for ourselves, our families, our country, and the world.
Falling back is what made Hillary cry. Only she knows the way forward, just as only she knew how to bring us national health care. Experienced. Experienced is what high end sellers call used cars.
Hillary's experience amounts to a debacle with her health care plan while "in the White House", a disastrous vote to take take the country to war where many of the sons of the very women who support her have been killed, maimed or physiologically damaged for life, and a vote on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard giving Bush another free ticket to war. This along with her calculated votes in the Senate carefully weighed against her long time plan to run for president.
If experience is what American voters were looking for, Biden, Dodd and Richardson had it in truckloads as compared to Hillary.
Hillary then became the candidate with enough experience to change things. She even stole Obama's staging by burying the political corpses that usually surround her on stage.
With South Carolina coming up will Hillary claim African-American heritage and trot out the Southern accent again.
The public in now being asked to swallow yet another Hillary line that her tearing up was a genuine moment which then allowed women to come out and support her as opposed to Obama. The reasoning being that she was been ganged up on and this had to be so traumatic for women.
Ask Romney how he felt during the Republican debate, would the reaction been different had he come out of it crying? How much tougher can this campaign be on a White women over the experience of the first serious African-American candidate.
Those not inclined to support an African-American candidate are looking for excuses by consciously buying in to Hillary's illogical arguments based on her "experience".
Sadly, some African-American voters are also being "bamboozled" by Hillary even though her arguments as to why she is better than Obama harkens back to the arguments that were made to keep Blacks from achieving in the past. The "its not your turn" and "your not ready yet" how many quarterbacks, doctors and governors ago have those arguments been disproved.
"There is no crying in baseball" applies to all in the game.
It is all disconcerting to me. After waiting for my generations turn to lead we finally took the helm and our last two presidents have been an incredible disappointment. Our generation was suppose to be the generation of change. Our altruistic spirit that we so proudly passed around the room turned out to be more of the same and at the moment, worse than I could have ever imagined.
I am for change, but I am more than a bit skeptical that humans can do anything but just talk about it. I am going to have to be convinced.
Gary Hart is right, this is an election about transition. And we are at an important generational crossroads. But he's wrong, too - because it *is* also about power. Hillary Clinton's message has been "Put me in power and I will make change on your behalf." Barack Obama's message has been "let me empower you to make change on your own behalf." Though I think Obama is the more progressive of the two, when push comes comes shove, I have to admit that a close reading of their policies shows that their domestic policies are pretty similar, they'd work for many of the same changes. However, the difference is stark: Clinton wants power and Obama wants to empower -- the latter is the more feminist stance, if you ask me.
Obama represents the "Audacity of False Hope" on health care. As small business owners we are health care voters, and Obama gutted real health care reform here in Illinois where Democrats are in full control, spouting the same smoke and mirror non-solutions as Massachusetts Mitt. All that provesis thatdemocrats can sel out the Good of the Whole to the Welfare of the Few as well as republicans. Hillary is just as bad. Obama and Hillary as individuals have both taken more money from corporations committed to stopping real health care reform than any Republican running. Forcing everyone to feed the beast that is the problem (health insurance middleman profit and bureaucratic overhead) will not solve the problem. Edwrads is our last best hope. Hundreds of thousands of innocent lives and billions of wasted health care dollars depend upon real (not fake) health insurer reform. They are making out like bandits at our expense, and make oil industry CEO's look like paupers.
Well written and well reasoned. However as I suspected most take it as a push to elect Obama. People can not think for themselves anymore, your reasonning falls on deaf ears or those that want to support one canidate or the other. Obama is of no substance, I do not want a warm and fuzzy orator with no experience in the White House. I want experience. Someone that knows where the levers of power are and how to use them. Change is just a word. You change the toliet paper in you bathroom don't you?????
If I had my way, I would have preferred Gore/Dean this time around (Experience, AND Change to spare!) Being a boomer at the cutting edge of Astral technology, I find myself torn between these two candidates.
My beef with Hillary is that while she would make us proud as President, she has yet to realize that the Party is headed in a new direction. She chose Lieberman over Lamont, she sided with the Carvilles of the DLC when she should have embraced Howard Dean. She chose war over Peace.
Barak does lack experience but he knows the street, and that's a good thing. However he doesn't have Hillary's vast network of connections that, on the flip side of the argument presented here, could be invaluable to affecting meaningful change.
John Edwards also has a point. The modern conglomerates seriously need to be taken down a few pegs. I honestly haven't heard enough from the front runners, so I'm content to let them fight it out all the way to Denver.
My choice will based on the following question:
Assuming that Democrat coattails will be long and we will have solid majorities in both Houses, which candidate is most capable of repairing the awful damage of the soon to be previous Administration, and moving the country forward?
The answer of course, for me, will still be Gore/Dean. Sadly, it seems the only way Al Gore will accept the nomination is if we award it to him. So whomever is left standing in Denver has my full support.
Amen! So true. Thats why I, a 28 year old, am leaning toward Obama. Though if it wasn't Obama, it still wouldn't be Hillary. I was thrilled with the Iowa results, not only because Obama won, but because Edwards came in second. It is about change, and about getting away from old relationships, one of which is Big Business, who I see suffocating the American economy, widening the gap between rich and poor and slowly worsening the quality of life for middle class America. Hillary seems more the type to try to effect change while protecting these relationships, which I don't think is possible. I believe it is time for the younger generation to take over, after all it is our generation that is inheriting the country. Look at all the problems that have come of the last eight years, that could be summed up as a result of cronyism.
There are only two democratic candidates running that have voted with Bush more than the turncoat Kiss of Death Lieberman... it so happens they are the corporatist-media darling front-runners: Clinton and Obama.
Bush didn't show up for National Guard duty, Obama and Clinton don't even show up for their Senatorial duties.
Both have been pathetic as Senators, yet they expect to lead if elected. God save us.
The not-so-soft sell for Obama, if I ever saw one.
I have no argument with the urgent, pressing need for change. And I don't dispute Sen. Obama's eagerness to do just that. My reservation is his ability to accomplish that.
As "W" discovered, good intentions do not assure a good outcome.
Before getting my vote, a candidate needs to spell out his/her specific program to successfully implement the various changes.
I do not accept slogans like status-quo, or change or experience etc. These kind of slogans dumb the electorate down, are shallow and make no sense. What is this political campaign coming down too ridiculous slogans and nasty comments? Most of the media or the blogs are coming from a premise of mindlessness. For example, the Hart article it is filled with either/or statements. Sorry Gary that is simplistic thinking; we do not know whether Hillary or Obama will be in one category or the other. For example, where do you think Obama will get the people who work in his administration? They will come from the same group of people who will work in Hillary’s administration. It is time for people to really think.. but I guess that is not what campaigns are about.
Thank you Gary. Your analysis of the choice we face; Obama with the "the vision thing" or Hillary with the 'old same-old, same-old' baggage is right on.
Obama's charisma and inclusive nature will lift us out of the mire the old policies and politicians have created. We are tired of undeclared wars, unnecessary loss of life and collateral killing, unfair taxation, loss of industries and jobs, aggressive foreign policies which lead to dislike, hatred and mistrust, loss of civil liberties, our government spying on us, the police state mentality, coverups, lying, torture, rendition, a failure to uphold and abide by the rule of law, and an insular executive branch which is a disgrace for our nation. This list could easily be expanded but the choice for us is very clear. Do we want more of the boring Clinton dynasty having allegiance to the many special interest groups, swaying in the winds of the most influential or strongest lobby?
Barack Obama is the democratic candidate with the charisma and intelligence to excite our people to regain the greatness of the vision our founding fathers had for this nation.
People make too much of the war funding voting records of all of the candidates.
The simple fact is there are still too many PNACish Republicans in Congress; there are simply not enough unowned Democrats to force this President's hand.
Likewise, this President and PNAC have already succeeded in getting the troops into Iraq, and Congress does not have the Constitutional authority to rewrite their orders and pull them out using any means short of impeachment of the President, which is again impossible due to the current composition of Congress.
Although this President, the PNACish Republicans, and the owned Democrats (as well as whatever form of life Lieberman is) seem quite content to kill our people off a few at a time, to defund them by blocking funding bills could result in their wholesale slaughter especially since this President has never demonstrated a capacity to think rationally.
Would you turn the water off to the firemen inside a blazing hospital because you discovered the fire chief was a child molester?
Our servicemembers are effectively hostages to this caricature of a President until such time as we get a new President and/or we purge Congress. It is my opinion that any vote to fund their survival should be viewed as a null entry from a political perspective.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
