So two days ago, “disgraced” New York Congressman and electric public speaker Anthony Weiner’s seat went to its first Republican inhabitant since the 1920’s. Now of course theories are flying fast and loose as to why that is. Republicans say it’s because people are tired of “Obamacare” which I can assure you that’s not it. Democrats say it’s because the candidate himself wasn’t the best in the world, once again throwing their own party members under the bus (Republican’s chief asset is absolutely their solidarity). But it’s actually much simpler (and more complicated) than that…
First, there’s the obvious point that liberals don’t do well in special elections with minimal voter turnout. We have learned that the hard way over (Alabama’s special election to vote on a lottery for example) and over (the recent Wisconsin recall elections weren’t as successful as they could have been) again, yet still commentators act mystified every time a liberal loses a special election that a hundred people know about. Special elections have much older voter turnout as retirees (more Republican than not) are really the only ones who can get time off from work to vote in stealth middle-of-September election, and Weiner’s old district is heavily white, costly neighborhoods (surrounded by more Democrat leaning minority districts) where they have to work two jobs just to make ends meet. So yeah, a virtually unknown middle of September election to replace the recently pushed aside Weiner just really didn’t rate on a lot of people’s radars. [Also, after his resignation there was a lot of talk about just getting rid of his district, letting it fall into surrounding districts, but now that a Republican is there I’m sure that talk will die out.]
Then there’s the much larger issue that it really shouldn’t have even come to “replacing” Weiner in the first place. National polls were pretty tough on the former congressman during “Weinergate” where the media once again paid more attention to a sex scandal that’s none of our business than almost anything else that truly is, like that same pol’s voting record. All the attention once again let Americans put themselves in their favorite role: judgmental finger wagger, because there’s nothing a once puritanical country likes more than judging people. Still, “Big Tony” remained popular in his district–which is part of true Brooklyn and Queens–and they probably would have re-elected him the next time out if given a chance.
Of course, they weren’t given that chance. In fact, his own party made sure of that by completely abandoning him during his tribulations for the first week and then promptly throwing him under the bus the week after that. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Steny Hoyer, Max Baucus, John Kerry, and even Obama himself all told Weiner to resign, under the pretense he was a “distraction” for congress. Uhhh, right, because congress really was getting a lot done before him and sure got a lot done after him. Anthony Weiner’s non-sex scandal wasn’t any more a distraction than Charlie Rangel’s massive ethics investigation or Harry Reid actually being dead (it’s true, he’s only propped up for public viewing these days while a ventriloquist gives his speeches), but the true “distraction” of Anthony is that he was young, charismatic, and understood the power of YouTube clips better than any other Democrat out there. So, of course, he had to go.
Instead of finding a reason to get rid of the troublesome, headline-grabbing “star” that is Weiner (a favorite to become the next mayor of NYC), Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Steny Hoyer (Goddamn, when your name is Steny Hoyer, you know you’re old) should have been grooming him to succeed them. The Democrat remains a party that eats its young, either out of petty jealousy of being surpassed in the spotlight or out of full-on paranoia a rising star will take their leadership positions. It happens on the local level, as Alabama state legislature Democrats had been in control since the Civil War but for decades have failed to bring up a new crop of stars out of territorial defensiveness. So in 2010, almost all of the state Democrat reps and senators found themselves out of a job in no small part because they hung around too long.
And it definitely happens on the national stage too. The GOP has a crop of young, energetic rising “stars” in Eric Cantor, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, etc. that aren’t the brightest bulbs in the box but have been given leadership positions, can capture national headlines with a press conference, and have been groomed to lead the way. The only person like that on the Democrat side was Anthony Weiner, oh wait, he was actually 46 years old (not totally a spring chicken) and is now out of a job. Well at least there’s Alan Grayson…oh wait, he’s gone too. Never mind, we have John Edwards and Eliot Spitzer–oh shit, the next generation doesn’t exist!
So I find myself bewildered at how the supposedly youth oriented party has boxed out their young, and been dominated by dusty old Democrats that have been around forever and can’t last much longer. I know that Vietnam-era progressives did a lot (and certainly think they can do a lot more) but liberal baby boomers have never been good about accepting their own mortality or sharing the spotlight. The Democrats in power today really won’t live forever, and, unless they do their best to stop eating their young, they won’t be elected forever either.
Great post Brody! I think you have touched on a serious issue here and made some great points. The Anthony Weiner fiasco would not have been as bad if Democrats would have just kept their mouths shut. I do believe Weiner made it worse on himself by not coming clean in the first place but I think it would have been survived, especially considering how far off the elections were. We set ourselves up for failure considering Democrats poor performances in special elections, the choice of a poor candidate to run in the special election and not to mention the fact that we allowed the whole thing to be played up to be worse then it was.
The bigger point is the fact that we are not setting up the future of the party. Look at Alabama where we kept electing the same people for the past thirty years and had no one to come in behind them. Now there are only two young Democrats in the state legislature that we are hinging the future of the party on in Alabama, which is poor planning on our part. Youth here have had opportunities to get involved (attending functions, knocking on doors etc) but grooming them to run has not occurredThis seems to be the norm rather than the exception in most states. We need to make it easier for the youth to run for lower offices and build them up until they can take a national stage and not canabalize them when we are fearful that they are taking up to much space and drowning out the traditional power brokers.
You’re right Jeff. For the Democrats to be the supposedly youth-oriented party there is a shocking lack of young “stars” that can command headlines nationally, and I think that reflects strongly on the paranoia and territorial attitudes of older Democrats that have been in power a long time and aren’t interested in competition. Of course, this is an example of being pennywise and pound foolish, as it seriously short changes the future of our party.
On a more local level, it seemed as if a lot of the Democrat reps and senators that had been in there for six or seven terms really had no exit plan, no clear successor, and actively blocked any young Democrats that would be candidates to take their seat. Of course, the ironic thing is that Alabama’s older generation might actually be more Democrat than the younger generation, as a lot of New Deal Democrats in their sixties or seventies today understand the Democrat’s social programs in a way people our age in Alabama actually don’t.
The voters have a little something to do with it. Young Democrats need to get more involved and actually run for office, and voters should support them. We allow the “dusty old Democrats” to stay in office and we never primary them with someone younger and more progressive.