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
Delegate Count:
Obama - 25
Clinton - 24
Edwards - 18
This is a fascinating clash. After seven years of disastrous international and domestic policy, Obama has tapped into this nation's desperate desire for "change," while Hillary has emerged as a lightning rod for millions of women, galvanizing that vote. She's done this by opening up, becoming more authentic, more real, as I wrote about here: http://mar
But change for the sake of change means nothing. Bush might argue he represented change--going in and invading a foreign country against the wishes of the United Nations is a bizarre form of change. What this country needs is someone who can bring about the right kind of change in education, the environment, international relations, health care,and much more. That's going to take a lot more than rock star like appearances and speeches. It's going to take a hell of a lot of work, creative strategy, collaboration across political lines, etc. We've seen these promises before, going back to Gary Hart's campaign in 76, and before (which I supported). The question is, who would be better suited to put this country on a true path to prosperity and world peace again? Clinton has a history of being polarizing, while Obama has so little experience. Yet either could surprise us with unexpected results. As another poster mentioned, it was LBJ--not JFK--who ushered in so much change in the 60s. But again, change can be a double-edge sword and must be approached carefully.
I guess I have grown to cynical over the years! Just because they say they are an agent of change doesn't mean that's what is going to happen once they are in office. So many times they present one face and you see a whole different one once they have been elected. The voter is only left to read between the lines and hope they are making a right decision. Regardless of what anyone says I like Edwards. I think he is the only one running who might have a chance of winning. I don't think Hillary will ever win a general election and neither will Obama. Both for the obvious reasons. Hillary has a image problem that's going to be difficult to overcome. There are to many racist's still in this country for Obama to win. That's what I see as the main goal of the Democratic party is putting a candidate forth who can win.
Boomberg may be all the things described above..ins
Mr. Hart, you said "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."
The choice is none of the above. You are right. It is not a time to put any kind of tribalism above the future of the planet and the future of our particular and peculiar part of it, the United States of America.
We are at a great turning (read David Korten) and we must change our story from one of Empire to one of an Earth Community. Bill Moyers alsopreaches this turning away from the Gospel of Greed back to the American Dream.
There is only one clear way to turn from empire and that is to take on irresponsible corporations and Smiley Face Fascism called Friedmanism or Rubinomics. Both of the candidates you mention, Obama and Clinton, are peas in a pod and firmly in the embrace of the multi nationals that are wreaking havoc on peoples and the environment every day.
So, please, do not vote for the candidates of more nuclear power plants or more building up of the military to keep our economic empire. Or the ones with half-assed healthcare plans. Or more bad trade pacts like NAFTA or the new Peru FTA which is worse than NAFTA but supported by both of your choices and loved by Citigroup.
A lot of us are tired of the flim flam. Read Glenn Ford of the black agenda report on "Barack, Hillary and the Sinister Nothingness of Change."
I want a grown up in charge whatever his or her age is and for my money that's John Edwards who will fight for people like Nataline Sarkisyan who died because insurance companies are allowed to decide who lives and who dies. His campaign is not about something nebulous. It's about real people who are struggling and a planet that is gasping for air.
No, NOT fighting the corporations and being "Good Germans" is playing it safe.
A word on the subject of youth and change vs experience. After listening to the debates by all the candidates, Democrats and Republicans, I am proud to be a Democrat. I can happily support any one of the Democratic candidates, including those who have dropped out, Biden, Dodd, and Richardson, and those who chose not to run, Gore and Clark. Any one of them, whether they represent a new generation (change) or the older generation (experience) would be a vast improvement over George W Bush and Company.
Mr. Hart, what is Senator Obama doing with so many advisors from the Clinton era.
Since Bill Clinton was the last Democratic President and before him Jimmy Carter, from what pool of people is this new leadership coming from to run and change our govenment and our nation for the 21st Century.
President Bush brought in a lot of new people to run our government for the 21st century and now look where we are!
Although I prefer Edwards, I like Obama just fine. But a friend of mine sent me this comment on Obama as an agent of change, and I am paasing it along because the point is well taken.
"If Obama (who taught constitutional law as an instructor at U of Chicago) is supposed to be such an agent of "change" why did he say he would have voted against the President's authorization to go into Iraq, when he was still in the IL house and not yet a US senator, then vote every time since for giving the President the money he asked for for Iraq with no restrictions and, on top of that, continuing the Patriot Act? It seems to me a real agent of "change" would have a voting record somewhat similar to Russ Feingold's
The only explanation I can think of for these votes is politics: that Obama, like Hillary, has had an eye on the presidency ever since entering the senate, and was playing it safe.
Another concern I have with Obama...if he is such a conciliator, why is he still having a feud with Paul Krugman? I believe it's over Obama's language on health care: Obama is standing by his position that he supports universal health care but is against mandated coverage because people should not be forced to buy something they cannot afford. That argument falls apart in a heartbeat when you apply the same thinking to auto insurance. Does it make sense that peole should be allowed to drive without auto insurance if they decide they cannot afford coverage?
This argument in and of itself is an old, meaningless saw. Change for the sake of change alone is at best meandering, mostly likely worthless and at worst, downright dangerous. Just because somebody is a fresh face doesn’t mean they inherently bring an ability to inspire positive change in government. They may do so, but their naivete or inexperience may as likely lead them into situations both counterproductive and ultimately helpful to the agendas of the entrenched interests we are all so concerned about combating. Look at what happened during the first Clinton administration. We were all swept away by the romance of change a smooth talking, inspiring President promised during a bitter election. Change was the order of the day, but once Bill Clinton got into office, he blundered from one half-baked legislative proposal to another, from gays in the military on, culminating in a health care fiasco that played right into the hands of the health care lobby. Two years later the Republicans took control of Congress. Bill and Hillary didn't know Washington then and they stumbled mightily. They learned. Obama hasn’t had the chance to learn. Usually, the greatest, most lasting change occurs through experience and a wise, deft hand maneuvering the levers of power. JFK didn’t have the political skill or muscle to push through the Civil Rights Act. He basically told MLK to go fish. It was Johnson - boring, crass, unloved, cynical old LBJ - that maneuvered one of the greatest changes in American political history. Just think about that before you are so willing to be seduced by the siren song of change. Experience may be dull and unromantic, but progress doesn't happen in leaps and bounds. It takes hard work, perseverance and a deep and fundamental understanding of how our government works.
After his brilliant 2004 speech at the Democratic convention, I was positive about Obama and his message of healing-- that is until the very first thing he started to do was to attack an entire generation of Americans, many of whom have worked all their lives for social justice and change. In contrast, Obama's generation, which should have picked up the change mantle from the baby boomers, sat passively through the materialistic greed-is-good '80s while Reagan raged through Iran contra, turned the US into a debtor nation, moved wealth upwards, and filled the streets with homeless. Now that generation blame us for their silence and passivity. Sorry, Obama. You can't heal a nation by inspiring an attack on so many good people [including Gary Hart].
With all due respect, every 'challenge' you cited short of global warming were not the 'huge transitional challenges' that they are today back in 1999. This is not about needing to grossly change how American government works, this is about cleaning house. There are American terrorists holding our government and media hostage and they have no intention of relinquishing any of their new found power without a fight. (Which candidate can bring the fight?)
We are choosing a new leader in some of the most troubling times in international history. Expertise on issues or leadership - we are all asking the same questions.
Ohg
http://the
What did Gary Hart mean by, "an unusual African American?"
AGENT OF CHANGE OR REFORM ?
Given our bad track record over the last 8 eight years of assessing qualified and quality candidates to lead us as President drom the white house, we should take a step back , take a deep breathe while we question our ability to make the right choices.
Let me refresh our memory. In 1999, we were faced with making a choice between Al Gore , coming from the same experience as Hillary Clinton, and George Bush, fresh kid , saying he was an agent of change, do you remember that?
Do you remember George Bush saying that he was not of Washington and therefore he was the best man to change the workings of washington
Do you remember how we recklessly attacked Al Gore for everything he did and did not do? If he smiled it was false, if he did not smile he was wooden and unemotional. Do you remember how we shredded the man's confidence in his own good looks? Who influenced us to examine Al Gore in this way?
Do you remember how we asked no questions of George Bush, because the media said that he was good for this country and we agreed?
Do you remember by August of 2001, we were sadly sorry that we allowed the media to misguide us , into electing George Bush for President?
Do you remember that in 2004 they (the media) told us we cannot( or should not ) change a President who is waging war, so we had to wait till 2008?
Please , let us not have chicken brains, and forget quickly what we have just learnt. If we check our immediate history we may see there are the same similarities in how we are approaching assessing today's candidates, for President, this time around .
How can you explain their love for him, while hating and encouraging us to do the same, to their nemesis...
I wrote an opinion at : http://ohe
Hart insults women, when he says many will vote for Hillary because she is a woman. That may be a factor, but hardly a deciding one.
We have had enough novices in the WH. They don't have a great track record. That includes the adored JFK, who gave us the Bay of Pigs that a more experienced leader may have been wise enough to leave on the shelf.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
