"I will not make age an issue
of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's
youth and inexperience." Thus spoke
a 73-year-old Ronald
Reagan during a 1984 debate with Walter Mondale while running for a second
term. He had come into presidency four
years earlier at 69, already the oldest to be elected. Nonetheless, he did serve out his two terms,
though some believe signs of his looming Alzheimer’s were evident at the end.
At an average
of 55, most of our presidents entered office at a relatively young age. Five of the first six (including Washington)
were 57. Both TR and JFK were in their
early 40's. Bill Clinton and Barack
Obama were among the seven others not yet 50.
Only 10 had reached their 60s, two of whom (Truman and Ford) moved up
midterm from the Vice Presidency (upon Franklin Roosevelt's death and Nixon's
resignation). FDR was just 50 when
first elected and, while he looked so very much older, only 63 when he died in 1945.
Given that presidential history, Reagan our oldest
incoming and outgoing chief executive, was an age outlier. That is something to think about as we look
ahead to 2016, and especially in considering which Democrat might succeed
President Obama. Hillary Clinton, the
assumed front-runner, will be 69 (the same age as Reagan) and Joe Biden at 73
would be charting new ground. Given
where we have been, and considering the unquestioned physical toll the
presidency can exact on its incumbents, it's fair to ask, does age, and
specifically their age matter?
Until the relatively recent past, retirement at a
certain age was considered a given. I
remember vividly when Rutgers University forced a world-class professor we knew
into retirement because he had reached the then mandatory age of 65. Other institutions public and private did the
same. The assumption, since debunked,
was that they might be too old to carry out their duties. Rutgers robbed itself of a talented and
seasoned scholar and its students from sitting at his feet. Some large corporations still impose compulsory
retirement for top managers, especially CEOs, and at an even earlier age. For them it isn't a matter of whether someone
over 60 (which is often the cutoff) can still perform — obviously they can —
but that not moving senior management out would prevent those below from moving
up the corporate ladder, at least having a shot at it.
It is the corporate model that might be most germane
here. Specifically, I would ask if having
a presumptive candidate Clinton backed up by Biden doesn’t prevent their party
from motivating and grooming a new generation of presidential-worthy leaders. In his recent New York Magazine "Circus"
commentary, Frank Rich suggested that this might already be the case when he
characterized the Democrats as having "only a shallow and aging bench
of presidential hopefuls". One has
to wonder whether that "shallow and aging bench" is a self-inflicted
potential weakness, a self-fulfilling and risky prophecy.
To be sure, this is a touchy subject on many levels
not the least possible age discrimination.
Being myself of a more mature age
I feel a little more comfortable about raising the question, but nonetheless
aware of treading on treacherous ground.
Then, too, there is that a potential Clinton run may lead to finally having
a woman in the White House, breaking that glass ceiling. As regular readers of this post know, given
my personal commitment to both civil rights and feminism, I was truly torn in
2008 in having to choose between her and Obama. Nothing is uncomplicated, and this
particular age question may be especially so.
Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden have paid their dues,
something that counts in politics, regardless of parties. Both have run hard, but thus far
unsuccessively, for their Party's nomination.
Those losses may not have harmed them because once rejected but
nonetheless qualified candidates are often "rewarded" with the
nomination a second or third time around, most notably on the Republicans
side. And with mixed results: Reagan,
McCain and Romney being examples. The
then Senator Clinton never fulfilled her "inevitable" role in 2008,
but for sure many in the party feel that this time she is due. Whether that would lead to the Reagan or
McCain outcome is of course unknown.
Given Clinton's presumed front-runner status, let's
pause to consider her potential candidacy.
During the 2008 campaign, Clinton leaned heavily on her experience
(especially in contrast to Obama), she being ready from day one. While a
somewhat controversial First Lady, she had booked in almost eight years as a
very well prepared and effective U.S. Senator.
She had a firm grasp of both domestic and foreign policy issues and had
become a very effective campaigner, albeit with a sometimes dysfunctional organization
behind her. She was, and remains, highly
qualified and again a woman in a sea of male contenders. At the end, she boasted having at least
cracked the glass ceiling giving hope
especially to her female supporters that she, and by extension they, would
ultimately break through. In my view, having
a woman in the Oval Office is way overdue.
Clinton has now added to her resume four years as
Secretary of State. She logged in millions
of miles over those years and was highly respected both abroad and, save the
usual political sniping, at home. Even
so, there are some who assess her tenure as more reactive than active. She avoided risk-taking initiatives, most
notably interjecting herself in the Israel-Palestine conflict, something that
her successor has done early on. Did she
want to avoid having a "failure" on her record? During the '08 campaign Clinton had to defend
her support of the Iraq War in 2008 and it is fair to say that she was then and
remains more hawkish than either the President or many in her party. She was among those who were pushing early for
interventions in Libya and especially in Syria. Finally, at issue the last time around was
the question of dynasty. We had had two
Bush presidencies and her election would have meant two of Clintons as
well. Dynasty has not come up recently,
but it is sure to reemerge and, I believe, appropriately so.
Does age matter?
At a time when we live and remain in vigorous good health longer than
ever, mandatory retirements seem so "yesterday". People like Warren Buffett and Rupert
Murdoch, both in their eighties, still seem at the top of their game. The Senate and House are both filled with
"seniors" who maintain rigorous schedules and remain effective. Bob Schieffer (76) has just led Face the
Nation to the top of the Sunday morning network talk show heap. The list goes on. But there is a cost, which brings me back to
the corporate mandatory retirement model.
All of the examples I've given are of people holding on to a very small
class of jobs. In each case, bench
sitting behind them is equivalent to a career dead end. Not only are the prospects of succession
bleak, but also few people — often the most talented — are willing to sit their
way into oblivion. The result is what
Rich called a "shallow bench".
As speculation about Clinton and to a lesser degree Biden
continues, few names of younger or even other candidates emerge. If this continues Clinton, who may already
have a virtual lock on the nomination, could win it by default, perhaps more
than by choice. I don't think that's
good for her, the party or the country.
Don't misunderstand, this has little to do with any lack of
qualification or even that she would not have my enthusiastic support. And it isn't a matter of age per se. Rather we need to be grooming new leadership
and equally important to benefit from fresh thinking, especially in the current
atmosphere of divisive interagency. If political
figures like say Martin O'Malley (50), Amy Klobushar (53), Andrew Cuomo (55),
Sherrod Brown (61), or Elizabeth Warren (64) seem well positioned to enter a
presidential race, we all want to know more about them, how they view national
and international issues and what they might do if elected. My sense is that the potential bench isn't
that shallow, that is if we let it be a bench.
Age may not matter, but impeding a next generation does.
____________________
No comments:
Post a Comment