( 2112 )

Last November’s complete fucking slaughter like mid-term election results hardly need restating so your friend and humble narrator here at 2112 won’t even bother to try.  But there is something about them – last November’s elections and the campaign cycle that preceded it that is – that hasn’t yet been discussed but absolutely needs to be.  Something that has to do with a fairly worrisome fact, a simple and completely obvious rather worrisome fact that progressives (people, pundits, and party bosses alike) nevertheless seem congenitally unwilling to come to grips with … It’s that the Democratic Party has no future and Barack Obama was a fluke, a freak accident, a temporary re-alignment of the everyday structures of our universe. And before you two crazy kids get all defensive, please allow me to explain. You see, I don’t mean that the changing ethnic, economic and social demographics of this Nation aren’t moving decisively in the party’s favor. I also don’t mean to suggest that now President Barack Obama’s landslide election victory was anything other than well-deserved. What I’m on about is here is how then State Senator’s Rise to prominence in his party was a complete an utter act of happenstance rather than the product of careful grooming and nurturing by cigar smoking party bosses and espresso sipping party loyalists (they still smoke cigars right?). Now that wouldn’t be trouble or troubling if it were a onetime thing (read: happy making electoral stroke of luck).  But it is not. It just seems to be the way our party (i.e. The Democratic Party) does things. We do not now and have not for some time plan, prepare and pave the way for our party’s electoral future. We don’t play the think tank game as aggressively as republicans. Our punditocracy is riven with the too old, the too out of touch, the too self centered, the invested in a pretense of reasonableness and or moral superiority and of course, the too naïve too stupid or both. Which is un-good, because the activist portion of the democratic base is too invested in a) the myth of the great man who by force of magical will can restore the lost unfulfilled glories of Camelot, plus … b) an image of itself as a scrappy “Rebel Alliance” posed forever against the dark powers of empire—and frankly neither trait facilitates coping overtly well with the various political realities inherent in pre-campaigning, governing and engaging with the public via the mainstream media.

Now you can argue with the statement above if you care to.  And you are definitely welcome to try, but there’s a specific item up there that I want to dive into, because the one problem skimmed over in the above that last November brought into pretty darn stark relief … pre-campaigning.  Which is, for those who came in late, involves the art and practice of securing the long term future of your party by identifying your potential stars (candidates, judges and secretaries) early on and doing everything you can to promote and pave the way for their rise to prominence. The right’s approach to judges, for instance, provides a perfect example of how they do this and how we don’t even try to.  You’re going to need to hop over to Wikipedia and check the “age at appointment” of the current crop of Supreme Court Judges now. (I’ll wait.) Notice how republican Presidents seem to appoint younger people to the court? That’s them insuring their future.

We don’t do that. Remember how people you knew were actively in favor of Obama naming Hillary Clinton (63) to the Court once upon a time? Look at those ages at appointment again. (No really, I’ll wait). See what I mean? Unfortunately the party is just as near-sighted when it comes to our candidates.

Let’s try the same experiment with the party’s respective up and comer offerings from last November. The Republican former Attorney General and now Senator Elect from NH Kelly Ayote (42), former San Francisco Attorney General and now Attorney General Elect of California Kamala Harris (46). The Republican Governor Elect from Nevada Brian Sandoval (47), the re-elected Attorney General of Illinois Democrat Lisa Madigan (44), the Republican Governor Elect from Wyoming Matt Mead (48), former Illinois State Treasure and Democratic Senate Nominee Alexi Giannoulias (35), the Republican Governor Elect from Wisconsin Scott Walker (43), Kentucky Attorney General and Democratic Senate Nominee Jack Conway (41), the Republican Senator Elect from Florida Marco Rubio (39).  See what I’m on about?

Yes. Scott Walker may have already killed his future. But in general … “Promising” republicans are, by and large, getting further into their political careers at younger ages than promising democrats. Right now, you may be thinking: So what? What’s the big deal? Those numbers are just happenstance, the luck of the draw. What are you getting so freakin’ verbose about? Well, let me answer those brush off’s and questions with two questions. First, are you sure the above happened by accident? Second, do you think it will have a long term negative effect on the Democratic Party’s national prospects? Or have you dismissed it already (as more than a few of your narrator’s friends and associates have) thinking something like: Barack Obama came out of nowhere, the situation’ll fix itself?

Ok now about that first question. Well, the easiest way to look at something like this is from 10,000 feet, which is to say through the lens of national politics. Let’s leave the 2012 contest behind—since we all already know who the democratic nominee is going to be—and take magic eight ball to post Obama democrats and republicans  and 2016. So who are the respective parties promising contenders for 2016?

Lets starts with the democrats and by eliminating anyone—well the one person—who it absolutely won’t be … Hillary Clinton. Now you may think that goes back to my before the 2008 primaries hostility to Secretary Clinton is coloring that statement but you’d be wrong. I’m a foreign policy nerd and while not exactly a grand strategist (which is the national security advisor’s responsibility anyway) she’s mostly pleasantly surprised me. No, Hillary won’t be the democratic nominee in 2016 (no matter what you’ve heard) because we’re talking about six-seven years from now and she’s currently 63—which is to say 70.

Not indulging in ageism or anything, just recognizing that the presidency shifting forward a generation and then shifting back would be something like a historical anomaly (and if you’re about to counter with Lyndon Johnson, please think that through). And it’s worth noting that the main thing Clinton had going for her back in 2007 was an aura of inevitability-invincibility that’s frankly gone. Basically every democrat who can run will run and they will all be post boomers and that does not increase her chances.

So who may run, may meaning they might but I can’t say I think much of their chances: Well, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick might just give it a go, Maryland Governor  Martin O’Malley may as well … and despite being fucking loathed by virtually every rank and file activist minded democrat former Senator Evan Bayh might. Vice President Joe Biden might; but he’d run into many of the same problems Clinton would. That leaves former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who though he’s also 63 probably will and probably should to murk up the cycle’s not looking like its gonna be great for Democrats optics; New York’s junior Senator Kristen Gillibrand—who may not but who’s making moves like she’s considering it; Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer also may and should and former Virginia Governor and current Senator Mark Warner will and despite not exactly being Mr.  excitement may just get the nod.

Question: Does that read like a strong list to you? Think about it for a minute in light of the GOP field I’m about to type out? (Really, I’m a patient guy. I’ll wait) Now let’s take a look at the GOP side of 2016—in a way that totally and complete ignores candidates likely to be effected and or influenced by lunar cycles.

Depending on how 2012 spins out we might see South Dakota Senator John Thune in the race; the current Governor of New Jersey Chris Christie (whom Cory Booker will hopefully have banished to either the unemployment lines or the Black Pit of Mordor—whichever—by the then) will also make his run; though he should in no way shape nor form return to these United States to mount a campaign for anything other than maybe a decent hamburger in 2012 … former Utah Governor and soon to be ex US Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman will also throw his hat in; as will newly elected Wyoming Governor Matt Mead; so will either (but not both) Republican golden boy and junior Senator from Florida Marco Rubio or Governor of Nevada Brian Sandoval; all of whom maybe doomed to watch their dreams burn to cinder and float away on a half breeze because South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley will certainly jump into the race as well.

Ok, same question: Does that read like a strong field of post Prez O contenders to you?

Better question … Which field looks better in terms of it’s pure political horse flesh? Another good question … What numbers jumped out at you when you read the respective lists? Well, first let me just stipulate that “political horseflesh” is a, problematic, multi-faceted measuring stick.  So let me put that another way; who’s good copy, photogenic, good at fluff interviews (The View), good at serious interviews (Charlie Rose), funny (The Daily Show), good on the stump (rally in Iowa), good from a podium (Think Tank policy speech), good in a crowd (a town hall in New Hampshire) and good in debates? You can take a minute.

Ready. So by my checked boxes count … things, well, things do not look great for our side. Brian Schweitzer comes out ahead and he’s kinda lonely out there.  On the other side Haley comes out ahead but the runner ups are closer than Mark Warner, and the back of the pack is nowhere near as far back as (sigh) Indiana born empty haircut Evan Bayh.

Now about that other question … The numbers are 68 and 50, the current age of the oldest democrat and republican respectively who may take to the 2016 field. Maybe this is just me being ageist or some shit but that seems like a pretty clear advantage for the GOP team and more proof that Republicans have generally done a better job of moving promising recruits up the ladder faster than democrats have.

The thing that’s disturbing isn’t that there aren’t potential superstars in the democratic party (to borrow Hillary Clinton’s initial description of then Senate Nominee Barack Obama) it’s that those democrats are further away from Senate Seats and Governorships than  their GOP contemporaries. Take California for instance, where Kamala Harris and Gavin Newsom are five or six rungs back rather than at the head of their State’s party. More importantly, Democrats, writ large, don’t even seem to want to think through politics in those terms.

I mean, do you remember some pressure Lautenberg into resigning effort from back in 2009 so Corzine could appoint say Anne Milgram thing that I missed? Have you noticed some organized grassroots driven effort to clear out dead weight like say Charlie Rangel or Dan Lipinski via primary challenge? How about local recruiting and training campaigns to get young progressives in city council’s on school boards in state legislatures? (Note: conservatives have those. They have for years. Like since the late 80s.)  No? And that means that we – that democrats – don’t have a future.  Even though almost everything else in American society from the creative class direction of our economy to the Latino youth bomb is working in our favor; we’ve fucked ourselves by not thinking in a long term in practical personnel type way. We await saviors. We mount large, mostly impotent and often wholly ignored protest movements. Which can be inspiring, admirable and great fun even if no one’s ever been able to explain what they accomplish in terms of actual political progress. Now, before you go let me put that another way: While Karl Rove and his associates were pouring unprecedented millions into defeating young, up-n-coming, Democrats like Jack, Alexi and Kamala … were progressive groups mounting similar efforts vs. Kelly, Marco and Nikki or were they (were we) busy making fun of Christine O’Donnell?

Tags: 2012, 2016, boomers, Brian Schweitzer, Democrats, Hack 30, http://news.arsonplus.com/2011/03/02/future-part-two-day-future/, John Thune, Jon Huntsman, Kamala Harris, Kristen Gillibrand, liberals, Mark Warner, Nikki Haley, Progressives