Does age matter?

"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.

           ____________________

My book Transcenders: Living beyond religion and the religion wars is available in print and as an eBook.  Both versions are available at Amazon; the electronic iBooks version can be found at iTunes; a Nook version at Barnes & Noble.

That Town

The American public has been characterized in many ways, not all of them flattering.  They have been called gullible, ill informed and even stupid.  We speak of the "electorate" but far too few of us vote.  And often those who do vote cast ballots that are contrary to their own best interests.  The majority of us know shockingly little about the people we put into office, not to mention the issues that confront us as a nation.  That may not make us stupid but it hardly gives one confidence in informed or intelligent voting.  Just as we buy into those instant diets that will make us svelte with little or no pain or sacrifice, we look for leaders with whom we can imagine sharing a beer or, yes, a glass of wine.  The pal-worthy criterion prevails across all demographic groups and probably to an equal degree.

Now those who follow my posts know that, while highly critical of low voter turnouts and how poorly many of us are schooled on the issues, I don't think the public at large is stupid.  Complacent absolutely, misinformed (often purposefully led in that direction) sure, but not stupid.  Perhaps what gives me so much confidence is that according to the most recent Gallup polling, only 10% of Americans have "great or quite a lot" of faith in Congress.  That's down from 42% in 1973.  Americans have a very good sense of what's going on, and of course equally what's not.  So Mark Leibovich, in his new book This Town, tells a story that somehow only confirms what we already know or fear.

The bottom line of Leibovich's tale is that Washington, whom everyone there refers to as "this town", is plagued by a deep-seated corruption (my words not his).  In the old days the word corruption conjured up an image of cash laden envelopes, which abounded across the land.  But this is corruption of a different kind, one that makes the other seem petty, if not inconsequential, in comparison.  In today's Washington, when work is done and "public service" is ended, few ex-office holders go home.  They stay and begin a second career, often as seven figure a year lobbyists.  That's good, because Washington is a money town and not having enough of it makes you an outsider.  If you have any doubt just ask the real locals who are struggling like so many Americans beyond "the beltway".

In a sense, there are two Washington’s — and that's probably always been true — one well-healed, well partied and well positioned; the other relatively anonymous and largely overlooked.  Leibovich writes of the former and few of those whose portrait he paints come off well.  It is a This Town that didn't suffer through the great recession but thrived, often feeding from the very trough of the nation's despair.  With bank and other interests at risk, lobbyists were super busy and former Senators and Congresspersons were in particular demand —particularly well paid.  And through all the despair, the lavish parties went on, for sure places to celebrate but equally, if not more so, to be seen, and to be noticed.

No where better or more suitable to make or renew connections than at an event like the late Tim Russert's memorial (with which Leibovich begins) or at the now overblown White House Correspondents Dinner.  That once modest get-together has now morphed into a star-studded extravaganza attended by Washington's elite and a large dose of national celebrities including the icons of Hollywood.  It is also a command performance of our presidents who are expected to show their lighter comedic side.  Leibovich tells us that Obama's act was threatened when it looked like the Special Forces might be moving in on Osama bin Laden on a Press Club Saturday night.  What a relief that the mission took place on the following day.  Next year's dinner will be on May 3rd, mark your calendar.

The pull of the rich and corrupt ways of This Town is powerful and almost no one, including the press, is immune from being sucked in.  Leibovich is careful to plead guilty.  They too, especially the big stars, are invited to the parties as the author was to one at Ben Bradley and Sally Quinn's Georgetown home — the bookend of Russert's memorial.  To be sure, they are often there to cover the moment, and they do, but we're a long way from the days when reporters, even the stars, often lived from paycheck to paycheck never straying far socially from their local bar.  This is a time when the likes of a Bob Woodward or Tom Friedman are more concerned about how to invest their riches than whether they'll have the ware with all to send their kids to college.  NBC's Andrea Mitchel, perhaps in part because she's married to Alan Greenspan, is part of the regular social scene, but she's hardly alone in that.

Leibovich's book as about what makes This Town tick and in the end it's all about wealth and, yes, greed.  He writes about today, but of course the character types and the motives he describes are not new to the place.  Tammy Haddad (a name you might not know) may be today's party major domo, but let's not forget the millionairess Pearl Mesta who in an earlier era was dubbed "The Hostess with the Mostess".  So, too, have their been ambitious Congressional staffers whose sheer chutzpa and ego got them into trouble.  Kurt Bardella (another unfamiliar name), whom the author describes as the "ankle-biting young flack for Representative Darrell Issa" epitomizes today's version.  There are, no doubt, countless others like him on the Hill and in across town.

We bemoan the fact that bi-partisanship has ceased to exist in Washington.  But have no fear.  In This Town former Democratic and Republican office holders routinely partner in big moneymaking lobby firms.  Covering all the bases, they are not dependent on which party is in control at any given time.  It's a new take on the recession-resistant business model.  And look for the senator who cries loudest about lobbyists and you're sure to find the fastest one to enter their fold.  Trent Lott, Evan Bayh and Chris Dodd are prime examples and Haley Barbour is one of the masters.  But perhaps no one really tops Bill Clinton.  Here is a man who didn't even own a home when entering the White House and now is a multi-millionaire.  While remaining a charismatic figure and doing many good things, his riches ultimately derive from having been president.  The veteran actor Dennis Haysbert tells us in his deep sonorous voice that "we're in good hands with Allstate".  Reading This Town sadly makes me feel that we are not in such great hands with the people running our national capital, in and especially out of office.

The oft-used adage that we have "the best government money can buy" runs much deeper than Citizens United and the big dollars spent on getting people to that town.  True, part of what we're seeing can be attributed to the fact that elected officials on the Hill continually need to raise funds for the next election, something that starts with their victory speech for the one just passed.  It is also sad but true that in some ways we're better served by an already super wealthy — a Michael Blumenthal or Darrell Issa — than the yet to be really rich people who now hold public office, elected or appointed.  Former retail magnate Herb Kohl didn't have to move into lobbying when he left the senate.  He already owned his soul, no need to sell it.

We need far more than election, tax or immigration reform in this country.  We need a fundamental reform of the system.  It's not only a matter that corruption prevails, but that it's so engrained that the players have forgotten what the word means.  Attribute it to money if you will, but a doing so is probably too simplistic. The fact is that the town that Leibovich so brilliantly paints is embodies massive conflicts of interest.  It is a way so embedded that it's hard to see a way out.  For sure, we would all like to see it change, but let's not hold our collective breath.  Don't ask why the bankers haven't gone to jail after 2008.  You know why and it's not pretty with plenty of guilt to spread around.  To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, we don't move forward with the government we want, but with the we you have. Despite all claims to the contrary, bi-partisanship is alive and well in that town on the Potomac.  Don't expect that to change any time soon.

Speech

“I think it is maybe time -- what do you think -- for maybe a businessman. How about that?”  That’s what Clint Eastwood told the assembled in Tampa.  Ah, the solution to our problems, a businessman as president.  And of course Mitt Romney couldn’t agree more.  We heard the word business 17 times in his acceptance speech — his credentials in it, President Obama’s lack of them.  He pointed out that the President “…took office without the basic qualification that most Americans have and one that was essential to his task. He had almost no experience working in a business.”  

That’s an interesting qualifier for the presidency, one that apparently the American people have never put high on the list.  Indeed, looking at the backgrounds of our forty-four chief executives you will find numerous generals, professional politicians and lawyers.  We’ve had at least one academic and, yes, an actor.  But in the long list there were only two businessmen: Herbert Hoover and George W. Bush, the first and only MBA.  In addition to the many misty eyed memory lane moments, Romney’s speech focused on the economy, the importance of free enterprise and business.  Eastwood said it may be time for a businessman, Romney’s unmistakable rejoinder — I’m your guy.

The only problem is that the two businessmen presidents turned out to be disastrous for the economy.  Hoover presided over a depression that continues haunt us and Bush over the worst economic collapse since.  It was the non-businessman presidents who led us out of downturns —  clearly this one remains a challenge — and in robust periods of growth.  Franklin Roosevelt, the politician, Ronald Reagan, the actor, and Bill Clinton, the lawyer, certainly didn’t seem deficient because they lacked business experience.  And Clinton left us with a surplus compared with George Bush who, through a combination of tax cuts and two unfunded wars, ran up the lion’s share of the deficits for which the Romney-Ryan team  blames President Obama.

Yes, we surely need a business president, one with the background of Hoover and Bush.  That’s what the people in Tampa offered us.  And speaking of former presidents, Bill Clinton is slated to be the lead off featured speaker in Charlotte.  Did you notice the absence of former presidents in Tampa, except of course for the usual bow to Patron Saint Reagan, this time delivered in film and by those noted flame keepers, Newt and Callista.  Apparently the Romney people think dead chief executives are  a safe bet; live ones are better left at home and out of sight.

According to the US Census, African American and Latinos combined now represent an almost 30% of the population.  Did you see much evidence of that as the TV cameras panned out at those gathered in Tampa?  The GOP constituency, certainly those who make it to conventions, is White as Ivory soap, a group that has declined from 75.1% to 63.4% in just the last ten years — Latinos in contrast are up 33%.  Keep watch next week and you’ll see a much more representative audience in Charlotte.  This week’s crowd cheered loudly when Romney said, “As president, I will protect the sanctity of life. I will honor the institution of marriage.”  They still care deeply about socially conservative issues, but young Americans have a different take.  According to Pew Research, “…young people favor gay marriage by more than two-to-one (65% to 30%).”  And they join the majority of Americans across most age groups who favor women’s reproductive rights to one degree or another.  I don’t know what this year’s election will bring, not only for the presidency but most particularly for the House and Senate.  Near term, the demographics and out-of-sync views in Tampa may not be deciding factors, but long term a party that looks backward with a combination of nostalgia and anger for what is no more, is ill positioned for the real future.

They say there has been scant movement in voter preferences for months.  Most of us probably take in these conventions with minds already made up.  I plead guilty to that and will enthusiastically vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden.  I’ll be sincerely relieved to see Romney-Ryan go down to defeat, euphoric if the election is not as close as predicted (we all can dream).  As to Clint Eastwood, politics aside, I’m still a big fan.  He is one of the great movie makers of our time and I sure hope he keeps on with his day job for years to come.

  

Transcenders: coming to a digital device near you next week.