Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Party of the Living Dead
A few days ago, in India, Barack Obama gave a three-minute speech in which he referred to himself 118 times.
That speech is emblematic of his entire administration. Nearly all of his speeches have been exceedingly self-referential. All Presidents are to some degree full of themselves. Had they not been so, they never would have made it that far. But when it comes to vanity, Barack Obama takes the cake. The whole enterprise has always been about him — and no one else — which helps explain the astonishing damage he has done to the Democratic Party. The way things are going, if he were allowed to run for a third term and won, he might be the last Democratic officeholder left — which would, I suspect, suit him just fine.
Thanks, in part, to the self-absorption of their standard-bearer, the Democratic Party now controls fewer Congressional seats than at any point in my lifetime. Its presence in the Senate is at a near-record low, and one would have to go back nearly 90 years to find a time when it was in as bad a shape in the state assemblies and senates.
One consequence is that the party is bereft of fresh blood. Think about it. The minority leader in the Senate is 75; the minority leader in the House is 74. Her immediate underling (Steny Hoyer) is also 74. It is true that Mitch McConnell is 72, but he is the exception to the rule among Republicans. John Boehner is 65, and he has plenty of associates well-known in the country who are considerably younger. Think about it. Can you name a bright, young, up-and-coming Democratic Congressman or Senator?
And consider this: the likely Presidential nominee of the Democratic Party will be 69 in January 2017 (older than Ronald Reagan was when he became President). Her likeliest rival, Joe Biden, will be 74; Jim Webb will be 70; and Elizabeth Warren, who graduated from Northwest Classen High School in Oklahoma City one year before I did, will be 67. As Jay Cost points out, if Hillary Clinton now anticipates no challenger, as seems to be the case, it is because the bench is empty: there is no one capable of mounting a serious challenge.
In the recent past, the Republican Party tended to nominate the fellow whose turn it was, and, often enough, this happened well after the man’s sell-by date. In the recent past, the Democratic Party tended to have a spirited struggle for the nomination.
This time it looks as if the roles will be reversed. Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Party’s answer to Bob Dole and John McCain. The only thing really impressive about her is that she still has a pulse.
Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi are responsible for this situation. They not only lead their party over a cliff. In the Senate, Harry Reid prevented votes and quashed debate. The chief consequence is that, in the last six years, only one Democratic Senator has managed to make a name, and she did this — not while in the Senate but while running for it. If there are any young Democrats in the Senate with the energy and intelligence of Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and Marco Rubio, none of us have heard anything about them; and there is a new crop of Republican heavyweights — including Ben Sasse and Tom Cotton — who may put these four in the shade.
The Democrats can find no solace in the state houses. Andrew Cuomo, who will be 59 in January 2017, is under a cloud and may soon be facing corruption charges. Deval Patrick, who will be 61, and Martin O’Malley, who will be 54, are history. Though they were Governors in the bluest of blue states, their records were repudiated when the voters of Massachusetts and Maryland elected Republicans to succeed them. The only Democratic governor who is in any way distinguished is the current chief executive of California, and he will be 78 in January 2017. And frankly Governor Moonbeam is friskier and more interesting than Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Jim Webb, and Fauxcahontas. The Democratic Party really has become the Party of the Living Dead.
The only presidential contender that the Republicans had who could compete with the geriatric set was Mitt Romney, who is a tad older than Hillary Clinton, and he has now bowed out. All of the remaining Republican contenders are younger than Lieawatha.
Rick Perry, Ben Carson, Jeb Bush, and Mike Huckabee are the eldest. The first will be 66 in January 2017; the second, 65; the third, 64; and the fourth, 61.
After that, the ages drop. Mike Pence will be 57; Rand Paul, 54; Chris Christie, 54; Scott Walker, 49; Paul Ryan, 47; Ted Cruz, 46; and Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal, 45.
For the first time in memory, the Republican nominee will be younger than his Democratic counterpart — and, at a time when the public is unhappy with the direction the country is going, that matters.
If, for example, the Republican Party were to nominate Scott Walker, it would have a real advantage with younger people. Hillary Clinton demonstrated at the time of her book launch that she is past it. Presidential candidates have to be quick, nimble, and affable. As became clear in her interview on Fresh Air, the Lady Macbeth of Little Rock is now slow, brittle, and petulant.
None of the prospective Republican nominees can be described in that fashion. We can quibble about their qualities, and we will. What cannot be denied is that everyone I have listed is extraordinarily talented.
This Presidential election is a real opportunity for the Republicans. Let’s hope that they do not blow it. Let’s hope that they chart a new course. Mitt Romney was right to drop out. The country is hungry for a fresh face, hungry for a sharp change in course, and this time around it will have little tolerance for the tired and the old.
If one of the younger Republicans — preferably, a governor or former governor, someone from outside Washington, someone with executive experience, someone with energy and a winning smile — proposes a sharp change of course, repeatedly denouncing “the tired, old, failed ideas of the Democrats,” the Republicans will not only win. They will win a mandate.
What we do not yet know, what we need to know, is whether any of the Republican candidates understand that the present discontents are systemic — that they derive not from the failed policies and administrative incompetence of a single man, a single administration, a single party, but from the propensities inherent in the administrative state itself. Most Republicans are managerial progressives. They suppose that all that is required is managerial competence.
That we suffer from managerial incompetence there can be no doubt. All that one has to do is think about Obamacare and one will see that.
But I believe that we face a far greater challenge — a political challenge, one that cannot be overcome by a technical remedy — and I am not at all sure that the likes of Jeb Bush, Mike Huckabee, and Chris Christie recognize that the inexorable growth of the administrative regulatory, welfare state is itself a threat to our capacity to govern ourselves.
Published in General
Please, not Lady Macbeth. Whenever I see her on TV all I see is Hillary scrubbing a blue dress, screaming; “Out damned spot!”
Yes, and only the Republican Bench and candidates will receive the media-driven review, and subsequent colonoscopy.
Cory Booker might be the one real counter example to the OP. Not that he’s accomplished in anything like the way some of the Republicans are, but he’s young, fresh, energetic, and relatively high profile.
I question whether most women really like Hillary. Yes, the Sandra Fluke’s of the world do. But the soccer moms? (Or LaCrosse or Hockey moms or whatever they are today.) I’m not so sure.
Is it possible, in our state of mourning, to shroud the mirror in the headline photo with black fabric?
Walker’s unapologetic conservatism reminds me of Ronald Reagan. Reagan truly “got” freedom and the free market; whenever Jimmy Carter launched a “you hate the poor” barb at him, he deftly turned it right back around on Carter. Only someone who truly understands the benefits of freedom and the pitfalls of government control is capable of turning missiles from the Left into boomerangs. Someone with that deep understanding and those rhetorical skills could walk over Hillary and into the White House.
Inertia and fear.
What a great post! The only thing I would add to the discussion is that while governors seem preferred because of their executive experience, we shouldn’t rule out Senators and their experience, which includes dealing in foreign affairs issues.
Which Senators in the race have experience? Cruz, Paul, and Rubio are all first-termers and have few legislative victories to their names (though, to be fair, nothing was going to get through Harry Reid).
‘Course one way to look at it was that they actually fillibustered the Senate – not seen for a long time. I, for one, would love to see that rule now enforced. As it stands, it’s way too easy on the senators. You want to fillibuster, stand and deliver.
Yesterday I had a facebook discussion about this with some friends, some of them lefties. I said that I’m ready to be done with Bushes and Clintons and got some agreement on that from the other side of the aisle. Anecdotal of course, but I think people are tired of these families. And when I pointed out that people will be ready for the opposite of Obama, I got some nods on that too. That’s my gut feeling. Ready to move on, but not to old political families, and not to an untried senator. That said, it would be nice to have Nicki Haley or Susannah Martinez in the mix on our side just to neutralize the woman thing.
Oh, but Merina, those aren’t real women. They’re self-hating Republican cookie bakers. Or something like that, the other side will say. Nicki Haley has already experienced quite a bit of the left, I think. Basically, it will be Sarah Palin redux whenever we do have a woman in the mix. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t or can’t happen, but she’s going to have to really want to go through that.
The press , the rotten,lying crooked biased press, they must be called out at every opportunity as agents of the Democrats. Mock them as fools , accuse them of using WH talking points, expose thier double standards , the Republican contender will be in the ring against both the opponent and the ‘referee’ , swing repeatedly at both of them , bring in Newt for advice, be armed with facts to dispute thier premises. All fair minded people hate a crooked referee make people see that that is exactly what they are.
If we want to neutralize the “woman thing” the way to do it is to offer a competing narrative.
Dems pitch economic security; it’s bunk but it’s effective. The GOP’s traditional answer is to be tough on crime and international bad actors.
That was a bit of a challenge to pull off against Barry the Bin Laden Slayer in 2012, but I suspect we can do it more effectively against their nominee in 2016.
Having a few women among the candidates would also be a good thing. I actually don’t think the press would succeed in Palinizing either of those women because social media is stronger than it was in 2008 and there has been quite a lot of pushback on their shameful treatment of conservative women. Sure they’d get some razzing, but I think people are just less willing to put up with that now and it would backfire. Also, these women are just more serious than Palin. She was treated very badly, but she also wasn’t ready for the national stage.
You aren’t going to hear from me that women shouldn’t be amongst our candidates, Merina. I’ll take almost anyone who has a chance to trounce the Dems’ pick.
The spotlight for a Presidential election (I’m talking about the general, not the primary) is brighter by orders of magnitude than a SC or NM gubernatorial race. I’m not knocking either of the ladies you’ve mentioned. I’m noting that neither has faced anything approaching the scrutiny Palin did in 2008.
If either runs, she’ll want to separate herself from the field in some fashion (neither is likely to be the obvious favorite of the donor class, or the infrastructure developers). That is the point at which a candidate makes the call: are you serious or are you a demagogue? Is this about our nation, or is it about you?
It is pretty amazing how geriatric the Democratic party leadership is nowadays, you would think this would hurt them severely with the youth vote. However, although the Republican’s made progress with the 18-24 vote in 2014 Dems still won the 18-34 vote pretty handily. I think Prof. Rahe might be right about 2016, we are hitting the high water mark for Republican politics given the more conservative cohort in the Gen-X and Young Baby Boomers. The next wave of Democratic leadership will probably come from the Millenial generation.
So many of the comments seem about: can the Republican candidate win. The article was not about winning but about age. Paul you are right, for long into the future the Republican party has shed one of the burdens of the 20th century party – the party of the living dead old white guys. If we think about presidents elected and presidents lost three older individuals come to mind – Nixon, Regan and Bush senior who most would consider older than the the rest – in what I call last part of the twentieth century and first part of the 21st century. Carter, Clinton. Bush junior, Obama, were younger. The losers? Think about their ages? Nixon really is the anomaly – most members of Ricochet know Regan and Bush senior were older, but in my opinion by their activity and demeanor (Young and vibrant.) hid their true age. (Bush senior skydiving at what age?) I agree with you Paul this is a true bounty, but more important it is the ideas, visions and experiences of growing up in the middle of the information age, a vastly different world than older politicians which is going to be the blessing. Growing up with Apple is vastly different than growing up with GM or IBM. Think about how these models of capitalism has influenced these younger men. Heck ask any young person and they will tell you they want to be the owner of their own small company; they all have ideas of what they would like to bring to the market place. The future is not the Fortune 500 but the Fortune 1,000,000. Which is all about diversification, decentralization, individual customization and freedom to not work for the mega corporations. Paul, you said at the end, paraphrasing – if Republican candidates believe they can manage the behemoth Federal Government – they are doomed. Only the ones who understand the world has been changed by Steve Job’s and Apple and the Federal Government is actually the doomed model. The sooner it is dismantled, dispersed, decentralized and defunded the sooner the 1,000,000 small companies can emerge. Oh and they will emerge whether the politicians agree to it or not. The train of debt has left the station it is headed to the known wreck of the behemoth.
Merina,
The most terrible thing about the US political and media environment is how harsh they are on conservative minorities. Sarah Palin is just the tip of the ice berg. Look at Michele Bachmann. As far as I can tell her career was completely ruined by a single cover photo and some poorly chosen thoughts on vaccinations. It is also not just conservative women. Any conservative minority gets treated harshly by the media. This is why I doubt that a woman candidate can run for the Republican nomination without destroying her political career. Particularly if she runs before she is ready. Sarah Palin might have made big waves in 2012 if she hadn’t accepted the VP job in 2008. If Martinez and Haley have presidential ambitions they should run for Senate in their respective states and wait for the 2024 (or God help us the 2020) cycle.
You can bet that Carly Fiorina is going to be trashed to no end if she even gets close the the nomination or the VP spot.
There’s no question of the devastation Obama has wrought on the Democratic Party. The numbers are undeniable. But do Democrats see this? Maybe they do, and it’s whispered in between them, but it doesn’t seem as if any of them are talking about it publicly. Maybe they will if they lose the next Presidential election and are still in the minority in the House and Senate.
I just had a thought. Part of the whole Democrat schtick is about celebrity. Will their dark horse come from a governor’s mansion? Or will they get a true “outsider” like Jon Stuart Liebowitz “Stewart”? Look at Al Franken and the Minnesota seat of the Senate. I really do not believe Mrs. Clinton will be the nominee. Too many of them know she is a lost cause.
Paul,
Yeeeesssss!!!
The more you see the more you dislike.
Regards,
Jim
Narcissistic Personality Disorder
http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/dsm-iv.html
Right now my fantasy scenario would be for Mitt Romney to back Scott Walker, helping him destroy Jeb Bush and costing Jeb’s supporters so much money they would be unwilling to spend any more attacking Walker after Jeb drops out.
Then, Walker picks Susana Martinez for VP. She proceeds to destroy her opposite number, after being accused in the VP debate of not being a “true Hispanic,” by the democrat, who speaks only enough Spanish to place an order at Taco Bell. Something like this actually happened to her, by the way, while she was running for reelection.
Next, Hillary becomes the inevitable nominee, and proceeds to demonstrate just how awful of a politician she truly manages to be.
In the general, the democrats are so dispirited that they stay home in droves, thus producing a Walker landslide and democrat catastrophe.
Walker then repeals Obamacare entirely, replacing it with something that can actually work.
It could happen.
Right??
Carly Fiorina ran for the senate here in CA and was not trashed, nor was Meg whats her name that ran for gov against Brown. Yes, the press is terrible towards conservatives and particularly conservative women, but people know that now and no one trusts the press. And we’re better at push back than we used to be. Women should not stay out of the game because of this.
Actually, I think this is an entirely plausible scenario. I’m with you in longing for it too.
Brian Schweitzer of Montana I thought was going to run a credible campaign for the Democratic Nomination.
But lets face it no one comes back from saying every man south of Mason-Dixon sets off your gaydar.
But that would have been fun to watch.
Here is a little sunshine for a very snowy Sunday morning. Bloomberg has an Iowa poll showing Scott Walker in the lead followed by Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee, and Ben Carson with Jeb Bush and Chris Christie trailing. I suspect that Walker is well-placed to pick up the support of Huckabee and Carson when they fade. Some of Rand Paul’s support will be made up of hard-core admirers of his father; some of it will shift. My further guess is that Walker will be perfectly acceptable to the admirers of Jeb and Christie.
Paul, do you know where Walker stands on social issues? Those are very important to me and I don’t want to see him pull a Mitch Daniels and call for a “truce”.
I am fairly certain that he is anti-abortion. My guess is that he is sound. He has demonstrated that he is a principled conservative, not an opportunist — and he has courage. The Republicans who dodge the social issues are generally opportunists.
One thing I am sure of. We will soon know the answer to questions like these. The spotlight is going to shift to him.
One is his advantages, it seems to me, is that he is fiercely conservative in practice without being strident in tone. There are others who are going to run who have a propensity for ruffling feathers they do not have to ruffle.