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
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 74 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. x Inactive
    x
    @CatoRand

    Here you go Merina.

    I’ll vote for him anyway.  His views on SSM are going to be a moot point I’m pretty sure.

    If he’s really opposed to abortion for rape and incest though, he’s going to create some fodder for the “war on women” folks.  I’m pro life too and share that view, but it’s a difficult one with some painful consequences, and it’s probably fair to say its outside of the mainstream.

    • #61
  2. billy Inactive
    billy
    @billy

    Paul A. Rahe:

    Merina Smith: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.

    Walker has a solid pro-life record. He has pushed pro-marriage legislation and some school choice initiatives.

    Also, I absolutely agree with you about his tone. As much as I like Ted Cruz, I wonder how he sounds to someone who doesn’t listen to Rush or read NRO, or even give much thought to politics at all.

    • #62
  3. Paul A. Rahe Member
    Paul A. Rahe
    @PaulARahe

    billy:

    Paul A. Rahe:

    Merina Smith: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.

    Walker has a solid pro-life record. He has pushed pro-marriage legislation and some school choice initiatives.

    Also, I absolutely agree with you about his tone. As much as I like Ted Cruz, I wonder how he sounds to someone who doesn’t listen to Rush or read NRO, or even give much thought to politics at all.

    Ditto

    • #63
  4. Z in MT Member
    Z in MT
    @ZinMT

    ToryWarWriter: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.

    You might be surprised.  People close to Schweitzer say he wants to run.

    • #64
  5. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    Hillary as a public speaker is shrill and stilted.  She gets away with it now because she’s not getting that much coverage, relatively speaking.  If she gets the nomination, something I do not consider a given, wait until the heat of the last few months of the campaign when she is on TV constantly, in everybody’s face, and not just the true-believer Democrat who is predisposed to liking her,  but the “low-information”, only pays attention in September and October of election year voter is confronted with her.

    Somebody on either the flagship or the GLOP podcast some weeks back had a very apt description of her speaking style, but it escapes me at the moment.

    She’s not a warm and fuzzy person.  She’s an old lady and she’s going to come across more as that unpleasant grandma that’s always yelling at the grandkids.

    • #65
  6. Howellis Inactive
    Howellis
    @ManWiththeAxe

    Cato Rand

    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.

    Screen shot 2015-02-01 at 3.25.11 PM

    • #66
  7. Marley's Ghost Coolidge
    Marley's Ghost
    @MarleysGhost

    The King Prawn:

    Paul A. Rahe:

    The King Prawn:

    JoelB:If things are going so badly for the Democrats, why does it seem that they are still in control of almost everything?

    To borrow from Jonah, the feckless crap weasels we have in “leadership” of the party.

    In principle, under the Constitution, Congress has the power of the purse. In practice, recent Presidents have proved able to face Congress down. Congress passes a budget or a continuing resolution. If the President does not like it, he vetoes it; and when certain government offices are shut down, they get the blame and are charged with obstruction even though he is the one responsible. Partly, this is the work of the left-liberal media. Partly, it is due to Congressional cowardice.

    At least for the time being, nothing will be fixed until and unless we have control of Congress and the Presidency.

    Last time we had a showdown over the budget Obama barricaded roadside views and open air monuments. I’m relatively certain that republicans came out on top of that fight, if just barely, and only by overcoming quite the campaign by Obama’s rear guard media. By saying we need to wait until the next election to have a positive effect you sound more like Boehner than I’ve come to expect. I can’t see how we ever win that mythical election that actually counts if we don’t make the argument every day, in every fight, and with every proposed piece of legislation.

    I couldn’t possibly agree more with something I have read recently on Ricochet.  How many seats in the House, how many in the Senate, how BIG a win for the White House???   And if we DO win, then can we NOT facilitate the Democrats and capitulate the day after we take control??   The bureaucracy of D.C. MUST be reined in and reduced in size and that will take courage under fire.

    George W. Bush actually did try this early in his presidency and he came under wave after wave of attacks from the political left, from media, and from the bureaucracy itself.  I remember all too well the hearings with lawyers from Justice who were declaring that if the president got his way with appointing lawyers of his choice then all hell would break loose and Justice would be filled with nothing but incompetents.  This time around that will seem like a walk in the park.

    The liberal media knows the cat is out of the bag with regards to their gross bias and they have nothing to lose at this point.  If a Republican wins the White House, he will be feeling heat, abuse, pressure, and derision before he is even sworn in and that battle will rage until he is either driven to a standstill for fear of doing anything or unless he decides to face the slings and arrows without fear.  We cannot show fear in the face of the current media, they are like feral animals at this point and will pounce on even the slightest sense of timidity.  Also, the new president needs to insure he gets an iron grip on the party so that they are out there fighting the good fight defending our principles and message. OK, done my rant, back to your regularly scheduled conversation. ;-)

    • #67
  8. user_385039 Inactive
    user_385039
    @donaldtodd

    The Party of Hell N0! #48 “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.”

    If I remember correctly, a lot of the Silicon Valley entrepreneurs are liberal in their political orientation.  It would appear that those people haven’t yet understood that the Federal Government is the doomed model.  Steve Jobs was one of those people.  Their money insulates them from the issues that the middle class experiences.  They are part and parcel of the uninformed voting class.

    • #68
  9. user_385039 Inactive
    user_385039
    @donaldtodd

    Xennady: #54 “Susana Martinez proceeds to destroy her  opposite number [who is a] democrat, who speaks only enough Spanish to place an order at Taco Bell.”

    Another candidate for quip of the year!  Thanks X.

    • #69
  10. Lensman Inactive
    Lensman
    @Lensman

    Paul A. Rahe: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.

    Between now and November 2016 there is a strong possibility that two seismic economic developments will occur: (1) A crash in the financial markets sparked by the bubble bursting in China and/or Europe; and (2) The insolvency of Social Security/Medicare will become so obvious as to be undeniable.

    The first could destroy the argument that the Dems have done anything right in “managing the economy” in the past eight years. The second could support the argument that old central government programs from 1935 and 1966 are doomed to fail eventually and that “eventually” has arrived.

    All it takes is a Republican candidate who understands what Hayak was writing about all those years ago. Scott Walker may not have a college degree, but his education may have been sufficient to acquire that knowledge. After all, Margaret Thatcher’s degree was in chemistry but she mastered the principles of free market economics while a back bencher in Parliament.

    There is absolutely no hope that any Democrat running for President in the next ten years will be anything less than a closet socialist.

    • #70
  11. user_385039 Inactive
    user_385039
    @donaldtodd

    Merina Smith: #55 “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.”

    It is a given that the pro-life vote is between 20- and 30-percent of the Republican vote.  I don’t believe that Fiorina or whats her name are pro-life.  If this is to succeed, that is a consideration which should be entertained.

    We at Ricochet now regularly entertain the idea that the Republicans will stiff the pro-life crowd, and will stiff the TEA Party people, and may even take a swing at the libertarians (although to be fair I take swings at the libertarians).

    If enough Republican-oriented voters don’t vote, or vote for a third-party candidate, we lose.

    • #71
  12. user_385039 Inactive
    user_385039
    @donaldtodd

    Miffed White Male #65 “[Hillary’s] not a warm and fuzzy person.  She’s an old lady and she’s going to come across more as that unpleasant grandma that’s always yelling at the grandkids.”

    Just ask her husband.

    • #72
  13. Nick Stuart Inactive
    Nick Stuart
    @NickStuart

    donald todd

    Miffed White Male #65 “[Hillary’s] not a warm and fuzzy person.  She’s an old lady and she’s going to come across more as that unpleasant grandma that’s always yelling at the grandkids.”

    Just ask her husband.

    Read somewhere that something Hillary Clinton has going against her is she reminds too many men of their first wife.

    From which I suppose it would follow she reminds a lot of women of their husband’s first wife too.

    • #73
  14. user_581526 Inactive
    user_581526
    @BrianSkinn

    Bit late to the party on this one, but this piece brings to mind the comparison that I’ve drawn many times: with the comparatively low fertility rate of its adherents and its entrenched indoctrination apparatus within the educational system, the Progressive movement is very much like the Shaker religious sect: they depend almost entirely on conversion, rather than procreation, to propagate the belief system.

    Lovers of liberty can hope that the former will wither away in much the same way as did the latter.

    • #74
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.