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
Obama's the progressive candidate with the progressive voting and sponsorship history who turned down corporate jobs as a magna cum laude Harvard Law School graduate to work as a civil rights lawyer for a small firm in Chicago but somehow Clinton supporters call him a CENTRIST and Edwards supporters call him a CORPORATIST.
Has it ever occurred to you that simply saying something doesn't make it so? Has it crossed your minds that maybe, just maybe, Edwards' late game populist platform is a ninth-inning swing for the bleachers and Hillary's Republican political past, vote for the Iraq War, vote for military action against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, unfunded healthcare mandates, criticizing Obama for his anti-death penalty, pro-medicinal marijuana, and anti-minimum sentence on drug charges makes HER the CENTRIST?
Sorry, but Hillary was preaching about compromise and centrism in 2002 and she gave it to us with her constant shillling for the Republican machine. Obama has offered nothing but Progressive ideas and votes in the US and Illinois Senate and has fought for Civil Rights his entire life. So explain to me how people can be deluded into believing the OPPOSITE of reality just because their favored candidate says so without any actual proof.
Next time Clinton says to look at Obama's record, how about you actually look at his record?
T.E. Lawrence said it best, just substitute "old men" for "old party regulars" (and "old women") and you have an approximation of the New Hampshire results:
"We lived many lives ... never sparing ourselves any good or evil; yet when we had achieved, and the new world dawned, the old men came out again, and took from us our victory, and remade it in the likeness of the former world they knew ... We stammered that we had worked for a new heaven, and a new earth, and they thanked us kindly, and made their peace."
Everywhere I look people are trying to explain Obama's "failure" or "underperformance." The problem is, Obama performed exactly the way the polls said he would. Exactly. Everybody performed the way the polls said they would ... except Hillary Clinton. Now, call it a last-minute bump due to her emotional moment or whatever, but don't try and imply it had anything to do with anything the other candidates said at the last moment -- they performed exactly as they were expected.
What I find simply stunning is how the major papers are calling her victory "stunning and a comeback" when for years and for the last couple of months they were predicting her to win these states by a wide margin. Lets see, what has been accomplished by the Front runner, Hillary Clinton, she lost IA and declared the state not important even though she spent tens of millions there - good going front runner. and she won NH, by 3 points with well over 100,000 votes casts on both sides even though she spent tens of millions there too.
I fell that Hillary Clinton should win the nomination because she has the status quo Democratic monied machine behind her and they are very very organized. They have been preparing her for this since they gave her the Senatorship, using it as a stepping stone.
If Hillary Clinton does not win the nomination it will be a big upset but more importantly its will signal a authentic cry by America that they want more and "leaders that see over the horizon" a bridge to the future, finally we'll experience the new millennium instead of feeling as though we've been on hold and stagnant for 7 years or more.
What I find simply stunning is how the major papers are calling her victory "stunning and a comeback" when for years and for the last couple of months they were predicting her to win these states by a wide margin. Lets see, what has been accomplished by the Front runner, Hillary Clinton, she lost IA and declared the state not important even though she spent tens of millions there - good going front runner. and she won NH, by 3 points with well over 100,000 votes casts on both sides even though she spent tens of millions there too.
I fell that Hillary Clinton should win the nomination because she has the status quo Democratic monied machine behind her and they are very very organized. They have been preparing her for this since they gave her the Senatorship, using it as a stepping stone.
If Hillary Clinton does not win the nomination it will be a big upset but more importantly its will signal a authentic cry by America that they want more and "leaders that see over the horizon" a bridge to the future, finally we'll experience the new millennium instead of feeling as though we've been on hold and stagnant for 7 years or more.
Since when is Hillary the "safe alternative"? She is the only candidate that will lose to the Republicans. Sticking with Clinton is using an outdated playbook that the other team has already memorized and knows how to counter. Plugging in either Edwards and especially Obama changes the game and puts the Republicans on the defensive. Sticking with Clinton keeps the Democrats trying to justify the decisions of the past instead of facing the massive problems of the future.
Senator Hart, there is no going back. George W Bush has slammed the door on the Twentieth Century and cursed us with problems that may take the next hundred years to address.
There is no going back. There is only forward. The past always looks better than it was, and the future always looks more frightening.
"We have nothing to fear, but fear itself."
Those were the words that moved a Nation of uneasy Americans forward when it seemed there was no future.
Toiling in the privation of the Dustbowl and seeing a better future? Ha, what a Fairytale.
Ah to return to the Roaring Twenties, when times were good and "Silent Cal" grew our economy and made us feel ... so ... good!
The Dustbowl ... how the hell did we get here?
And now this FDR fella thinks times will get better ... ha! He's dreaming!
Senator, sometimes we need a Dreamer to rescue us from our Dustbowl ...
A Dreamer with the Audacity of Hope.
HILLARY reacted in that way because she had LOST IOWA,,,,,,,,,,,,,,had she won she would never have welled up.
be HONEST at least.
we certainly did not mind her showing her sadness at having lost.
While I agree this country needs to move forward and must find new ways to counter the challanges of the 21st century, I an not sure that Senator Obama is the only candidate that can and will be able to accomplish this. he gives damn good speeches and can energize a crowd, but Senator Obams has not really shone us what he is made of.His climb to the top has been a fairly easy one. He is certainly the propped up media favorite, but I have not really seen him deliver on anything other than those powerfully given speeches. I think he has a way to go and a lot to prove- at least to me, before I would be willing to "ride the wave". On the other hand, I am not so sure that Senator Clinton should be regarded as and regulated into the group of old school. Senator Clinton could bring not only some experience, but a new perspective-that of a woman- into a Democrat White House. That is, as long as her husband is decidedly out of the picture. Senator Clinton-if elected, should tell Bill to butt out. I think you sell her short by assuming she will start where President Clinton left off. These are diffent times and Senator Clinton is a person in her own right.
.
The Party of the Status Quo...
Are the players who wish to stay in Iraq, invade other Nations, excuse warrantless wiretapping of American citizens, torture, lift Habeas Corpus Rights, restrict legal council, build walls at our "brown" border, encourage rendition, incarcerate without Due Process, tolerate the usurpation of Congress and sweeps accountability "OFF THE TABLE"
The Party of the Status Quo...
Wears no color, belongs to no political affiliation, makes secret handshakes and oaths of silence, accepts lobby(SPECIAL INTERE$T$) bribes, and "CAN'T RECALL" their Oath of Office.
.
I grew up in New England. I think race was definitely factor in the NH primary.. In NE, it's all about being white, and saying you are liberal. Ha ha. Actions, however, speaking louder than words. New England cleaves to tradition and beats up anyone who poses change. They get mad if you talk with them about race (defensive) and will just say Obama is "interesting." Code for "we don't want a black man for prez." I've worked in offices in New England and women have no problem watching other women getting beaten up. They are like mean girls in high school. I think Obama was too scary for them (the unknown!) I am pretty sure they lied to pollsters. I know these people. . .not ready for change! (But pretending they are for it to deny allegations of racism). I'm very disappointed. But not surprised. Also, Remember in the movie The Departed when Matt Damon's character says to the black cop, "you're black guy in Boston, you're already fucked!"
Let's hope the rest of the country isn't as smiley faced back stabbing as rascist, greedy, unprincipled New
England
What do you mean by unusual Black-American?
And you speak of a new generation of leaders....Obama has a lot of Bill Clinton's people. And, with all the troubles you mention, is it really time for a newbie to learn on the job?
Hillary Clinton is a failed leader and a failed liberal. She failed to stand up to the neocons and share in the blame of dargging the US reputation down the gutter (the attack on Iraq under WMD excuse) the dead and the wounded that followed (american and iraqui) and the economic cost (trillion dollar) which may cause the dollar to be devalue for the foreseable future! Hillary was entrusted with power in the Senate and failed to represent us! Why should we trusted with the office of the presidency? She lacks the courage to take on the neocons. She is too worried to be labeled dovish and liberal! I certainly will not vote for her as much as I would relish to see a woman become the President of the U.S.
Maybe Hillary is human, and maybe she is connected, and maybe she has forgiven Bill - when a woman of real strength and self esteem would have said, "No more" - but I don't really give a damn.
I want fire, I want excitement, I want Obama. I want to believe in my country again and I don't see that happening with a member of the old guard.
An Edwards/Obama ticket would be unstoppable. Ditto an Obama/Richardson ticket.
But for God's sake, let's not put a target like Clinton in the Repugs'cross-hairs. Our divided nation would stay divided. And we're all worn the hell out with that.
My opinion: Stop blogging about presidential candidates until after the primaries!
Most people who are really interested have made up their minds and will not change. If there are any truly undecided voters, reading this stuff will make them non-voters. So why not stop irritating each other until after Super Tuesday?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
