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.

Comments

[aspen]

If Hart is trying to say that Hillary represents the status quo of the current administration, he is not the intellect I thought he was. That is ridiculous. Her policies would in no way be a continuation of GWB. I have problems with a Clinton return to the WH, but it is not based on Hillary being the status quo candidate. I am certainly open to a change candidate, which would be any Democrat, but am not open to one with such a brief resume as Obama.

[eddiestardust]

For years and years all of us have been run over by the steamroller of higher and higher costs from Health Insurance, medications,college tuition and interest rates on credit cards to name just a few.

I do not see anyone talking about real change here.

Yes, Universal Health Care is a good idea but look at it this way...While many Amercians have health insurance it hasn't stopped any health insurer or pharmacuetical from raising it's premiums or costs.

Colleges and Universities continue to raise tuition so that now it's really hard for anyone to put themselves through school and all the more harder for parents to do it for their children.

Credit Card companies have been raising rates so that now quite a large number of American citizens live better because they charge everything and they owe millions.

Historically it seems that we pay for the largesse by recession but it only continues to get worse.

Purple Girl is right. Those of us born in the late 50's and 60's have had it with those in power today.

All they know is to stick it to us and those who are younger.

And no one wants to talk tough either, not even the major candidates.

We really need folks to say NO and HELL NO to all of the concerns above.

How about saying to health insurers that you must REDUCE your premiums a little each year or you pay an additional tax? And if you decide to reduce it even more, you receive a tax break?

Same with Pharmaceuticals.

Don't think so? Well think about this:

My premiums (Blue Cross) went from $312 to $450 last year.

Just visiting my primary physician last week and the cost would have been $90 for a few minutes.


I could go on but I'm tired of saying these things.

Real Leadership?


It doesn't exist yet.

[Purple Girl]

Now you're talking Gary!
It is exactly what is going on. I had a woman say to me - with glee (amongst a group of 3 woman/ 2 men) "so Hillary Took NH !"
Since she was a client I made general chit chat. But what she expected was the other 2 woman to Gleefully Reply "Hell Ya!" Alas- she was with 2 younger , college educated and politically enlightened woman- She was out of her League. Had it been a social gathering- I would have quickly informed her- I Don't vote with my vagina!
At the beginning voting for Hill ws a foregone conclusion- Not now. I knew as soon as she ran for the Senate- she was aiming for the Pres. She has made every wrong turn she possibly could since that time. Too Bad So Sad.
You old Boomers better keep an eye on your backs- your lil' Sis & Bros are coming up behind you- and we are pissed! Those of US born in the late'50's early 60's are getting the shaft from your greed and lies. You got to liking that leather way too much- and your ass proves it- you look like the 'Good ol' Boys' you once said you would overtake and change the world when you got th echance- Bull Shit.
Now that you've got all your tax breaks and Hummers- we- your siblings and the next generation will be working til the day they die to support your asses and fix your fuck ups!
World War Two brought US the Greatest Generation, who gave birth to the next generation....
Flower Power brought US the most Spoiled Genration, you had the luxury of the '50's, We got the turmoil of the 60's and tried to catch the hope in the '70's.
What was th eold saying.."Trust No One over 30", let's change that to 55.

[Macready]

Excellent post Senator Hart . . . totally agree with you . . . America has to take vision and change over the ossified status quo . . . fear will only produce more fear and more wars . . . we know only too well from hillary clinton's voting record where she stands . . . not far removed from the current heinous policies followed by bush in the Middle East . . . these policies have to be abandoned in favour of diplomacy and America's kow-towing to Israel must stop . . . again we know exactly where both clinton's stand on this issue . . . the only hope America has is Senator Obama . . . and rather than gender or race . . . this election should be about change . . . the type of change that the public were calling for in the 2006 Congressional elections but still not have received.

[Traveller]

I disagree..I dont think there is any harm in coalitions. Why does it have to be one or the other? There is absolutely nothing wrong with experience. The entire world respects the elders and there is no evidence to indicate that youth necessarily cannot learn from elders. So why is it impossible for all to join and do what is important- which is work towards progress of society?
Second guessing personal motives of the candidates is futile. Moderates are what is needed far more than extreme candidates. Yet everyone has a place in a government so complex as ours. Why cant we ever think of a coalition of ideas and personalities? T

[truesoccermom]

I do not want another 4 or 8 years of half the country HATING the President. This will be the case if Clinton is elected (just metion the name "Hillary" to any Republican and listen to what they say). Obama is not only well qualified and, most importantly, well suited to be President (read his book if you don't believe it yet) but would be the best person to LEAD this country and bring us together.

[tennisbum937]

Beware of the initials JJ and AS as they may cost Obama the nomination. Obama is a bright guy who has stayed clear of race but he is too closely connected with Jesse Jackson and that means Al Sharpton is around the corner. Jackson' daughter is best friends with Michelle Obama and was the matron of honor at their wedding. Jackson's son is the campaign manager for Obama in Illinois and can be loose with his tongue. Barac has to keep these people in check or he will lose.

[monique]

You know too much about politics for me to blame this on your naivete.

So, you are either overly optomistic, in denial, or being purposefully misleading. You know that in order to get anything done in Washington, Obama would have to make deals, promises, and compromises just as anyone else would have to.

Congressmen have constituents back home and their interests to represent and consider, and people don't just sign on to bills without reason--everybody has got an interest to protect--and you know this.

So, why pretend that Obama would be any different? You know better. And so does he. And so do I.

Besides, what an awful way to view political leadership. What about experience? You also know that nothing will get done by neophytes. You know, that just as with any job, but even more so in Washington, the longer you are there, you more power you have. You learn how to move bills through Congress. When you have been on important committees, the experience and knowledge is invaluable.

Why pretend that experience is not important? Under your reasoning, I guess we would just have to throw out the President every four years--maybe every year--and replace them with a completely, new, squeaky-clean, intried, untested person that would have to learn on the job. And just about the time, they have gotten the hang of it, and might be able to make a difference and actually acomplish something--we would throw them out again!

[sarrab]

enough all ready, change is needed

[kizzie]

Mr Hart,
I admire the fact you have realized we really don't have good choices right now. There are too many ties that connect the candidates to prevent any real change. And Obama is just too green to take on the chaos that is going on in the world even though I love his speeches and optimism. But I do not see Bloomberg as the best alternative at all.
We don't trust anyone with the type of connections that are apparent with all the wanna be's. We need someone totally out of the loop, that has never taken pact money, or had lobbyists knocking at their door or office making contributions. This means no one in the near vicinity of the US Capitol or State Capitols! Do you know such a person who could fill the gap?
The only person I would even consider would be Lou Dobbs, even though he will not run. He has been the only one in recent history who tells us what is really going on in our government. With illegal immigration, trade inequalities with China, outsourcing the middle class,( which is presently being destroyed,) the failing banking system, and the power mongers who are destroying our country. NOt to mention the illegal war in Iraq, not protecting the borders--not just from illegals, but from terrorists that are coming across and are already here, and our ports that are left unprotected.
This is what we need. This is what we expect! Someone who is responsible enough to actually do something about all these issues. Do you have any suggestions on who this could be? It's not Bloomberg, Clinton, Obama, or any of the other candidates now vying for the position---------
There are many of us out here that would dedicate ourselves to such a candidate.
Run, Lou, Run for office. Save the middle class!!!!! We need you.

[shimanskyr]

Obama is selling snake oil,
He is not qualified to be president after being in the Senate for only 2 years.
If he were white he would not be running for president.

[Rocku]

One more point:

I hope the insuferable, Bill of Rights hating, billionaire Bloomberg does run and spends his entire fortune chasing the power of the Presidential office to find himself a loser, broke, alone, and in rags on the very streets he now walks as mayor.

[Rocku]

Strangely, I mentioned the "power" metric a few days ago here on Huffpost, and now it seems I am not alone in seeing that as a factor in this election.

I must also agree with Querent that the last thing we want is to have some other idiot in office who wants to run the government like a business! Businesses, by charter, are begun to make a profit. Governments, at least ours, are established to serve the people's interests. The last time I looked, the founding documents described this public interest as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A far cry from the pursuit of profit! The exercise of power in the name of the people by the Executive Branch can have no other legitimate aim than to further life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[Rog49Thomas]

Brother Nixon - the poster boy for being part of the USA conservative political establishment led a very significant (and decidedly non conservative) reorientation of our foreign policy with the recognition of the PRC.

General deGaulle - the ultimate French nationalist - "cut and ran" in Algeria.

Anwar AsSadat - a member of the original revolutionary cadre and leadership in Egypt - made "peace" with Israel.

There are many more such examples.

Not one of these chaps would have been considered an agent of change prior to these moves. Rather they were part of the establishment with all sorts of networks, obligations, etc in place.

[xargaw]

I would like to see a ticket of Barack Obama and Senator Jim Webb.