At one time there were as many as what, 27 or 28 candidates running for president in the Democratic primary? It was the most diverse field of candidates in American history by gender, age, race, religion and region. It was something to behold and with which to be proud. There was so much promise among this field of good candidates.
I had honestly hoped that we would see the emergence of the next generation of Democratic leaders in the 21st Century. After all, we are already 20 years in the new century. To borrow a phrase from John F. Kennedy: “Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans…”
Alas, it is not to be. It appears this election will be the last hurrah of the generation of politicians that dominated the latter quarter of the 20th Century and the early part of this century. We appear stuck in the past and unable to look forward to our future.
Barack Obama was supposed to be this generational transformative figure, yet here we are.
Donald Trump holds the title of oldest president at the time of his first election, taking office at 70 years and 220 days old. Serving two terms would see him overtake former president Ronald Reagan, who was two weeks shy of 78 when he left office.
The Democratic field is also now entirely made of septuagenarians: if elected, on Inauguration Day Bernie Sanders would be 79, Joe Biden and Michael Bloomberg would both be 78, and Elizabeth Warren would be 71.
There are very few Western democracies that have ever had elected leaders in their 80’s, which is what Sanders, Biden or Bloomberg would be in their first — and quite likely only — term of office. Their pick for a vice president will be critical, because their vice president really will be “a heartbeat away from the presidency.”
How has the most diverse field of candidates in American history come down to this: three white guys in their late 70’s yelling “get off my lawn!” at each other, and mom yelling “boys, please, stop your fighting!”
How does this look like the Democratic coalition of women and minorities who elected the most diverse members of Congress ever just two years ago?
Is this really the best we can do? How is this supposed to inspire the next generation of Americans coming of age, the way that John F. Kennedy inspired a generation into public service and politics?
I will vote for whomever the Democratic nominee is — Donald Trump and his fascist personality cult are an existential threat to the very survival of American democracy — but I am disappointed in how this once promising Democratic primary field has evolved.
“How has the most diverse field of candidates in American history come down to this…”
I think there are a many reasons but the Democratic leadership generally gets who they want (except in 2008). It’s all about power and money.
Right now (at this moment) the Democratic Establishment is riding high because they believe they have reversed Bernie’s momentum and their boy, the one who will toe the line for them, has had a “comeback” after winning South Carolina and endorsements from “moderate” drop outs.
However, one of my new theories is that there is some kind of Hillary factor playing out against the women candidates. I have to wonder if voters are really afraid of having a woman at the top of the ticket after that epic loss that has had such terrible consequences.
And then there’s the billionaire factor proving that money can buy almost anything. Mike Bloomberg enters the race late with the billion dollars he had lying around on the coffee table, runs ads on TV and immediately becomes a player despite being grossly unqualified. That is a major problem.
But I suppose we’ll see what the people think, at least the ones whose votes get counted.
The current field is also monopolized by millionaires and even a billionaire. Warren is worth about $12 million. Biden is worth around $9 million. Even socialist Bernie Sanders is a multi-millionaire at about $2.5 million. And I won’t even mention Bloomberg, although I should because he is probably the only one who earned the money through persistent hard work and job creation.
Personally, I do not hold this against them but Dems should think about your greenhouse before you throw stones at Republicans in the future.
So what’s your point?
There is a misinformation campaign on the GOP side that says Dems don’t want anyone to have money.
That is a lie.
Liberals don’t care if you get rich, they just don’t want you to do it on the backs of your workers and through paying off politicians like you to get undeserved tax breaks.
And Bloomberg may have started off earning his money, he’s since been skating along on tax loopholes and a low capital gains rate.
Be rich, just don’t lie/cheat/bribe your way to the big fancy house.
My last paragraph was my point.
I know, and I know there’s too much money in politics.
Now, what have you been doing about it?
My money reference was not about campaign spending but candidate worth. Although the spending of Bloomberg and Steyers gives me pause to reevaluate my position on spending limits.
And you implied that Dems were somehow hypocrites for some of the candidates having money.
And again I’ll tell you that liberals do not care if you get rich, they care about how you get rich and how the game is rigged, and how too much of America’s treasure goes to a handful of people because people like you rig the game for them.
Yup, all minority candidates (Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Julian Castro, Andrew Yang) have dropped, leaving only Samoan American Tulsi Gabbard, and now Mayor Pete, first LGBTQ candidate is gone too. And only one other woman remains, Elizabeth Warren who claims some Native American ancestry. Let’s see what Super Tuesday brings.
Thanks Carolyn for pointing out that Tulsi Gabbard is still in the race (although I don’t quite know why you refer to “only one woman remains” in the next sentence–there are, as of today, two, Elizabeth Warren and Tulsi Gabbard).
Oops, you are right Fact Checker 13, there are still 2 women running (in Arizona and elsewhere). My math skills are lacking, obviously, but that’s because I’ve already discounted Tulsi, as has fellow blogger David Gordon in his post yesterday. And Tulsi used to be my Congresswoman in D 2 in Hawaii. Saw her at a town hall in Hilo a few years ago, before she thought of running for President.
Well, Bloomberg has quit after Super Tuesday, leaving 4 candidates for the Arizona PPE (two men, two women). Bernie coming to Phoenix tomorrow, Warren on Saturday. And the new front runner is former VP Joe Biden.
I, too, thought a new generation of political leaders would emerge from such a promising group of candidates. In fact, I didn’t realize how much I was counting on it until I read this piece and started to cry. We must unite behind the winner of Super Tuesday. If it’s Bernie, then lets all take a deep breath and come to our senses about what his brand of socialism really is — a return to the kind of programs that characterized the New Deal and helped to lift us out of the Great Depression, that created the safety net that the vast majority of us rely on. Tell me please what is so revolutionary, so frightening about Social Security, Medicare, and the progressive (the more you make, the more you pay) taxation of the rich?
If it’s Biden, then let’s get behind him with full-throated, unstinting support. Let’s demand that he surround himself with the best and the brightest, not only of the new generation of leaders we’ve had a chance to observe on the campaign trail but of our seasoned leaders, think John Kerry at State, Leon Panetta at Defense and dozens of others who have proved themselves in earlier crises.
Both Bernie and Joe are good, decent, experienced, patriotic men with decades of accumulated wisdom. We Democrats can carry either one of them to victory with the diversity and passion for democracy that is our strength if…and only if…we unite.