We are living in an era in which starting a life is not easy for the young. It has always been a challenge for the many of us who have no particular direction in mind, but it is a singular challenge today, and as technology continues to winnow away areas of employment, we socio-economic wanderers become an ever increasing demographic. I believe that the 2016 presidential election will turn on that point as the New Hampshire primary and the Iowa caucuses did. The young are becoming the possessors of our society as the baby-boom generation fades into retirement and eternity, and they are disaffected. So when Hillary Clinton says that she is a pragmatist who doesn't want to make promises she can't keep, she is not evincing a trait that people under thirty will admire. What they want their political leader to be is someone who, as Bobby Kennedy said, dreams things that never were and says why not. What Kennedy characterized as the obverse--seeing things as they are and saying why, but by implication failing to aspire to confronting and fixing them at all costs--is the defeatist attitude that Hillary Clinton projects, and a generation that cannot afford to fail will not accept it. Further, they will not elect someone who does.
Donald Trump has perfected the polemic art of projecting the ability to confront all odds and obstacles with a sanguinary political rhetoric to match his sanguineous countenance while never saying how. And a large contingent of our polity has endorsed his hollow cry for change, which he bases solely on his assurance that we should trust him because he can make the deal. Bernie Sanders--and in the interest of full disclosure, I intend to vote for him every chance I get--has mastered pointing out that there are general phenomena that are inimical to the prosperity of not just generation X, but all of us down here in the bottom 80%, and like Trump, he has garnered the support of a substantial constituency. But Hillary Clinton seems to be content to tread the middle ground between Trump's bullying bloviation and Sanders' righteous indignation, which is nothing better than taking a pass on the issue of change. It is not that the young want a fist shaker and a saber rattler. What they want is someone who is committed to trying to institute change, and to persist in the face of reactionary obduracy from those who now are in control. The irony in that fact is that Barrack Obama beat her the same way in 2008, but all she took from that defeat was the need for a campaign organization, which means nothing now, and wouldn't have meant anything to Obama in 2008, without a message, like "Yes, we can." No, we can't is no substitute, even if it is the adult thing to say. The brashness of youth, which Bernie Sanders has--perhaps in surfeit, but to his loyalists it is only too much of a good thing--will not be overshadowed by Hillary Clinton's plea to wait a minute. No one wants to hear why an aspiration is impractical; everyone wants to hear a commitment to at least try to overcome the obstacles, but Clinton seems so risk averse that such a stirring promise would now ring hollow as it fell from her lips. Hillary Clinton is yesterday. Paradoxically, seventy-four year old Bernie Sanders, or God forbid, Donald Trump is today, and my guess is that one of them will be our next president.
If I were running Clinton's campaign, I would have her read Ted Kennedy's eulogy of his brother Bobby, paying special attention to the quotation of a stump speech that Bobby probably gave a hundred times or more. That is where why versus why not dichotomy comes from. When Kennedy uttered those words on the stump, they may have been just a rhetorical flourish, but they were inspiring in a way that is virtually universal, the way the Obama's "yes, we can" mantra was. People never tire of hearing someone try to inspire them to participate in great change, but they soon tire of people who do nothing but defend the past, and if Clinton doesn't learn that fast, and learn how to project the image of an agent for change who will not be denied, she is doomed to repeat the history with which she seems to be unfamiliar. And it must be noted that the fact that the words in question may not be anything of substance, they are forerunners of deeds that in many cases are profound rather than being just an empty plea for the fulfillment of personal ambition. Even if she had palpable laurels on which to rest, resting on them would not be enough.
Satchel Page said that we should never look back because something might be gaining on us. But Hillary Clinton had better, because her past is gaining on her.
Your friend,
Mike
Leave a comment