Is arguing that older elected officials should make way for younger ones "Identity Politics?"

[EffieBlack]

If not, why not?

[mcar]

1. Yes. NT

[JI7]

2. paul ryan was a young speaker . I don't think he brought anything positive

[HopeAgain]

67. Paul Ryan is a heartless fraud

What does that have to do with anything?

[treestar]

111. It has to do with the claim younger is better

The point is Ryan is young and he's bad.

[delisen]

3. Yes and it also helps Putin achieve his goal of disrupting democracy

by turning Americans against each other.

[juxtaposed]

8. So putin is against old ppl. and for young ppl.?

[delisen]

16. Putin is for turning Americans against each other, creating divisions

within US. Old vs young is just one of many such divisions.

House divided against itself less likely to stand.

[juxtaposed]

20. One can make divisions on ones own, just a thought.

[Igel]

47. One can.

In fact, the entire "divide and conquer" doesn't really work unless there are already divisions. Disinformation requires that there be a measure of truth in the lies to season them; spreading division requires that the seeds of division already be present in germ form, in not sprouted.

[HopeAgain]

68. So because Putin wants disagreements, we shouldn't disagree?

Just agree with you or we are helping Putin. Oh, okay.

[delisen]

74. You said that, I didn't.nt

[guruoo]

73. Best way is to turn every uttered nuance into a major issue

[Snackshack]

4. Depends

On the lens it is viewed thru.

[Squinch]

5. Or is it just Children of the Corn creepy?

[msongs]

6. how about less qualified make way for more qualified, based on actually results? nt

[bitterross]

7. Is someone currently arguing that? Pelosi has said she's done in 4 years.

Sounds like some of the older elected officials are getting tired of the BS.

Frankly, I'd like to try term limits for a change. We need to get the life-time members like McConnell out of there. The founding fathers never intended for the Congress to be a full-time, life-time job.

[Codeine]

9. We already have term limits.

They’re called elections.

[bitterross]

10. Right, that's worked so well. /nt

[Codeine]

12. It's worked perfectly.

Politicians have lasted exactly and precisely as many terms as the voters have desired; no more and no fewer.

[EffieBlack]

19. Yup

If you can't be trusted to vote people out, what would make you think you can be trusted with voting for right people to replace them?

[Codeine]

23. I genuinely get a little pissed off

when people imply that voters are being unwise or are being manipulated when we return a person to office many times. Experience, seniority, and institutional knowledge count for a lot, and if someone is doing a good job they shouldn’t be arbitrarily bounced based on calendar passage.

[EffieBlack]

26. Agree - it's not only lazy

("I can't be bothered to do what I need to do to make good choices, so just take the choice away from everybody&quot , it also echoes the right wing "all government is evil and everyone in government is stupid, corrupt, and worthless."

[EffieBlack]

14. Codeine's dead on - elections are the best term limits

The kind of term limits you're talking about not only take out all of the experience, wisdomvand institutional memory, they would also give us more Ted Cruzes and fewerTed Kennedys - and Bernie Sanders would be a long distant memory ...

[juxtaposed]

15. term limits are a 2 way street we would lose some great representatives.

[pnwmom]

76. We tried term-limits. They lasted just long enough to knock out a very good Democrat,

Tom Foley, from his position as Speaker of the House, to be replaced by Newt Gingrich.

[drmeow]

100. IMO term limits are undemocratic

There is also evidence that they increase rather than reduce corruption. As much as I'd like some really awful people forced out of office, we'd also lose some really great people.

[treestar]

112. If that were the case, they could have put in term limits

they put none in.

They had to be begged to serve, as it was a hardship to them. In modern days, it has too many perks and is not as much of a duty as if was for them.

Still, the House is elected every two years - that's enough and no term limits needed.

[EffieBlack]

113. Thank you!

[WeekiWater]

11. It's identity politics and naive. NT

[melman]

13. Did someone do that?

[PufPuf23]

24. OP is correct but also a stab at AOC. nt

[melman]

25. 'a stab at AOC'

Yes it is. Based on something that AOC did not say.

[EffieBlack]

28. I'm starting to think you have a crush on me

I'm flattered, but be careful. I'm spoken for on DU and my Boo can get really jealous ...

[melman]

37. Okay

That's kind of a strange thing to think but you do you.

[Ciaphas Cain]

36. It's not aoc

But it's someone close enough that I don't blame your confusion.

She should have attributed the quote.

[EffieBlack]

27. It's not a "stab at AOC"

But I'm not surprised that some of her more sensitive fans might see it that way.

Here's a clue - everything isn't about her ...

[PufPuf23]

41. I connected the OP with a recent post regards a statement attributed to AOC.

Personally I tend not to agree that older legislators should bow out for the young in that older legislators have wisdom, experience, understanding, connections, and all that.

AOC gets way too much criticism IMHO at DU. But I admire her aggressiveness and tend to agree with much she has to say.

[EffieBlack]

43. If you think my OP referred to some random post about AOC, you haven't been paying attention to the

board.

I've never read any quote attributed to her suggesting that older people step out of the way to make room for younger people. I have, however, seen numerous posts right here on DU saying exactly that. Hence my question, given how vociferously some folk push back on any suggestion that we consider race or gender as a factor when selecting candidates as the forbidden "identity politics."

As I said, everything is not about AOC. My OP certainly isn't.

[PufPuf23]

56. My mistake. Sorry. nt

[SMC22307]

42. DUers didn't just fall off the turnip truck.

Of course it's a swipe at AOC and her recent tweets about the ~60 year age gap.

Nice projection with the "sensitive fans" bit. Well done!

[EffieBlack]

44. You may want to work on the AOC obsession of yours

My OP has nothing to do with her. Lots of things have nothing to do with her. Although that doesn't seem to be the view of some people who apparently now believe that any political discussion must be all about her.

[SMC22307]

45. LOL More projection. (n/t)

[EffieBlack]

57. LOL! Folks jump in a thread about identity politics that doesn't mention or refer to AOC,

try to hijack it with all manner of AOC references and accusations, and then complain about "projection."

Here's a clue, dear. The topic of "identity politics" predated AOC's emergence on to the national stage and it's perfectly possible for people to discuss the concept without it being about her - at least it was before some of her supporters decided that every topic MUST be about her and decided to inject her into as many threads as possible ...

[SMC22307]

84. It's a classic spin-off thread.

Along with a couple of other OPs re: AOC's tweet(s). I understand how the game is played, "dear," just be honest.

[EffieBlack]

91. If by classic spin-off" you mean

reading the comments in several recent threads got me to thinking about an interesting contradiction I frequently see on DU regarding race, gender, and "identity politics" on one hand and age" on the other, so I decided to start a thread to explore the topic further ... ok, it's a spin-off. And my OP has provoked some interesting observations and comments, notwithstanding the attempts to hijack the thread and turn it into another thread about you-know-who.

Is that honest enough for you? Or are you going to continue to suggest that I'm a liar who is sneakily trying to undermine a person you imagine to be the focus of threads and comments that have absolutely nothing to do with her?

[SMC22307]

92. Isn't "you-know-who" your ideal candidate?

Female. POC. Progressive. I was going to say "young," but age appears to be tricky. In the world of identity politics, is one age group more preferable than another? Help me out here...

[EffieBlack]

98. I think she's great - I like her a lot and thinks she has a huge future

Not sure what your point is or what you need help with.

And age is no more "tricky" than color or gender. We are frequently told that we shouldn't consider race and gender because that's "identity politics" but instead focus only on objective qualifications. But if considering race and gender are forbidden "identity politics," shouldn't the consideration of age also fall into that category? Yet folk have no qualms saying older politicians (e.g., Peloso, Biden, Feinstein, Sanders, Clinton...) should make way for younger people/fresh faces/new blood, etc. while people throw a fit the minute anyone suggests we should run a minority or a woman ("Stop with the identity politics! We need to run the most qualified person, period!&quot .

Mind you, I have no problem with considering any of those factors, whether one calls them "identity politics" or not since I think they are all valid things - along with numerous other factors - to look at in a candidate.

[SMC22307]

109. Voting is highly personal so I *try* not to tell others who or what to focus on.

In return, I don't like being told we need to choose Candidate X based on gender, race, orientation, etc. I couldn't care less how a candidate is wrapped, but I do want "the most qualified person" and won't apologize for that. And qualifications take many forms: education, background, public service, policy positions, ability to counter the morally bankrupt GOP, etc.

I have posted that we need "fresh blood" but not in reference to age. It's a reference to Americans not voting for candidates who have run before and lost. That rules out Al, Hillary, Joe and Bernie, who do happen to be older. I'm guessing even ol' Jeb knows not to run again.

I want people from all walks of life to run for office and to be given a fair shot at winning. Diversity is good. And there's nothing wrong with elder politicians mentoring the younger. Some may be couching it as "make way" (or others may be perceiving it that way), but I don't. They shouldn't be forced to pass the torch based on age, but if they're not getting the job done, then good riddance. (That's not a swipe at any one candidate...)

[guruoo]

72. Lands like water off a duck's back

for AOC.

You know, like this:

[treestar]

66. The sentiment occurs often on DU

every time someone ventures to support Biden for example. The debates about Pelosi. You often see the sentiment that older should step aside and let younger take the reins.

[SMC22307]

82. Nah, it's not Biden's age.

It's the treatment of Anita Hill. Coziness with the financial services industry. "Creepy Joe" that the right-wing will use to bury him. Running before and not winning.

I'd vote for him, but is he our best candidate?

[treestar]

89. But many DUers start with his age.

The other poster said no one said old people should step aside for younger and anyone who is older will get that being said. Pelosi was the subject of that when AOC wanted someone other than her for Speaker.

[SMC22307]

90. That's why I'm not on board with identity politics.

I want the best candidate regardless of age, gender, race, orientation, etc.

[TheBlackAdder]

17. As my tenured professors would say when asked why they don't retire at retirement age.

.

They are asked why they don't retire to open up slots for younger professors, their collective responses were golden, and I will paraphrase it in a few sentences.

"As senior faculty, I have the courses already planned, the materials formatted, all I have to do is show up to class and run through the material and call on students. All of the hard work is done, so it affords me income and gives me something to do."

.

[delisen]

18. I guess younger professors will do same when they age?

[Autumn]

21. Darn, that sounds almost like a lot of politicians. The ones who can't bother to read

what they are voting on because they know how to collect money and vote yes or no, often depending on the money

[EffieBlack]

22. And, therefore, based on this one lackadaisical professor somewhere on Americs

we should substantially restrict the right and opportunity for every in the country to choose the people they want to represent them?

[TheBlackAdder]

29. Let's get real, for 80% of the politicans, the party gatekeepers select the candidate.

.

People have very little say in their elected officials, if they can't get past the party machinery.

Funding and support by the party's congressional or senatorial committees determines if they are successful.

Very few break that mold.



Voters are most often faced with Option A or Option B.


1 in 3 people don't know their own state's governor. The senators are probably less. And only a third can name all three branches of government. Voters often just go into the polling booth and select the current one or vote straight party line.

.

[EffieBlack]

31. If you really want to get real, you'd face the fact that the PEOPLE WHO VOT select the candidate

Blaming it on "party gatekeepers" and "party machinery" is just an excuse and a copout.

[TheBlackAdder]

33. Well, the premise that the Democratic Party is a Ground Up Institution changed over the years.

.

The old Poli-Sci school of thought was that the Republican Party was Top Down, meaning that you had to clear the gatekeepers to even be considered as a potential candidate. The Democratic Party was Ground Up, meaning that the people choose their leadership. That changed over the past 20-30 years and the majority of state parties are now acting as gatekeepers, controlling who gets the media attention, who gets the funding, and who gets the ground operations to run a successful campaign. Gee, I shouldn't have just finished my Honor's Poli-Sci Minor a year ago.

While it is a nostalgic view that people choose the candidate in our party, the reality is that the majority of candidates need the blessing of the local party bosses to thrive.

Again, if voters don't know the candidate, they will just vote for the existing elected official to keep status quo.

.

[EffieBlack]

34. "If voters don't know the candidate, they will just vote for the existing elected official"

That's a problem with the voters, not with the system. And term limits will do nothing to fix that.

[TheBlackAdder]

35. There are several components to winning an election, each is required for success.

.


Just a few. . .

Name recognition
Party blessing
Funding
Ground operations

The last two are often dictated by party blessing.

.

[EffieBlack]

40. You left out the most important component: VOTERS

If voters get involved, pay attention, learn the issues, help to identify promising potential candidates (or get in the ring themselves), donate money when they can and their time whether they have money or not, they make the difference in the success or failure of a campaign and/or candidate.

This kind of argument is exactly the type of propaganda the Russians used to suppress the vote in 2016 - and, unfortunately, it seems that many Democrats still believe it. It's a clever strategy. If we can be convinced that we have no power, that THEY - "they" being some faceless, nameless bogeymen sitting in their quiet rooms pulling all the strings - they don't even have to steal votes since there is no need to steal votes that are never cast by people who have completely removed themselves from the process, thereby ceding the field "THEM."

[TheBlackAdder]

48. Interesting, I now deploying Russian counter propaganda tools to suppress voting?

.

I'm just stating facts as to who often gets to run for office and how they are selected by voters.

That is perhaps one of the reasons why AOC is pissing off a lot of establishment Dems, to control future selections. If she is not marginalized, it might lead to more non-establishment or non-traditional candidates taking office. There are a lot of OPs here doing just that, trying to redirect, restrain, negate and suppress her opinion. All voices should be legitimate in a true Democratic Party construct. The people in her district chose, so she should have a voice and be heard.

Now, most voters are lazy. Fact lazy, involvement lazy, etc. That's why most don't engage until the closing weeks.


Russian propaganda -

I don't like that implied connotation. This thread has now devolved to the point where I no longer wish to participate.

.

[crazycatlady]

50. For a lot of voters, politics is one of the last things on their mind

Other than your typical bread and butter issues (paying bills, putting food on the table, etc), people spend their energy on other things outside of work.

We live in a society where more people could tell you the score of the latest football game or what ex Ariana Grande's latest single is about than who their member of congress is. Until that changes, elections are mostly controlled by local/state parties that pull the strings. Staff salaries are often paid for by the state parties (I've been staff on a dozen campaigns).

[EffieBlack]

54. How is that going to change if WE don't get involved and change it?

It's up to US - people - to get involved at the local level and educate and motivate our friends, family and strangers. THAT'S what politics is - it's more than voting on Election Day. It's hard, sometimes boring, often frustrating grunt work. Too many of us expect THEM to do it and then bitch and moan when they don't see the results they want but haven't lifted a finger to achieve.

Have you ever been to a local or state Democratic headquarters? If you have, you know it's not filled with a bunch of wealthy fat cats so sitting around carving up their territories, picking candidates and handing out jobs. It's filled with a lot of ordinary people volunteering their time, answering phones, entering data, organizing canvassing, chipping in for the pizza lunch. And they never have enough help.

[crazycatlady]

58. I've worked on campaigns for a decade and in 10 states

And I used to be on my county committee and have voted on the 'party line' (and seen candidates drop out upon losing it). I'm quite familiar with what goes on at Democratic HQ since I've spent upwards of 80 hours a week there.

But too many times, I've been at the doors and yelled at because I interrupted a football game. I'm not talking about the people who volunteer their time-- the voters I'm talking about are the ones who yell at a canvasser for knocking during the game (which is obviously more important). Or the voters who select a candidate for a stupid reason (this was me-- I voted for Al Gore only because he had the same birthday as me. It was my first presidential election)

[EffieBlack]

59. That's great!

I've experienced the same thing you have, which is frustrating. But that means finding other ways to get to people (face-to-face, not through social media). That takes creativity, strategy and hard work. And it can't be done only at the party level - it must be done at the street level by volunteers who can go to where people are. It also means identifying and working with community "influencers" who can validate you and whom folks will listen to if they don't want to listen to you.

But we can't keep blaming it on "them" because WE are "them."

[crazycatlady]

60. I've staffed candidates at many community events (where people are)

From fairs/festivals to college football tailgates to farmers' markets to parades. Often I've got one tab opened to the campaign's Google calendar and another open to google local events (if that is my role within the campaign).

[EffieBlack]

63. That's awesome

But we also have to reach out to people between campaigns, without the candidates. One of the reasons folk feel so unengaged and disconnected is that people only reach out to them when a candidate wants their vote. I'm all about engaging with people on the ground between campaigns when there's more time to hear their concerns and try to find incorporate them into our strategy, platforms and messaging when we're not asking them for anything. I've found that when we reach out to people this way, they're very likely to be on board when election time rolls around - and they're usually open to being surrogates and influencers (excellent ones)!

[JHan]

64. It's mystifying..

2016 made me realise several things:

- some don't know that the DNC is not God, it is mainly a fundraising organization.
- States run primaries.
- confusion over the difference between a caucus, an open primary and a closed primary ( many were confused clearly) because the myths persist. ( Kremlin and Republican trolls loved this)

And to really see "selection" in action, a dive into history pre 1965 would be useful for some, where politics really was a backroom, smoke-filled affair with very little transparency.

Now that we do have more transparency, there's an obsession with someone "Rigging" something which is not even played out by political history. There are too many examples of "Outsiders" winning - someone claiming to run to "shake up D.C" - and run as an outsider/maverick is the most predictable thing a politician could do. It's amazing how many Presidents ran on this .....it's become an archetype.

As for the deliberate disengagement, cynicism and anti-government propaganda are so rife , there's the belief that politics doesn't matter. This deep cynicism is there through movies and literature as well, especially works by libertarian-leaning artists. The anti-political schtick is so common people boast "I don't follow politics".

"The worst illiterate is the political illiterate,"

[crazycatlady]

46. party machinery does exist

And AOC overcame that by beating Joe Crowley. If the Queens machine doesn't like her, she'll have a primary in 2020 to deal with.

In NJ there's a 'party line" on the primary ballot ("X county Democrats/Republicans will appear under the candidate's name). Very rarely does someone win off that line. It gets interesting if a district has multiple counties and they don't agree. The party lines are decided by county committee members at a convention.

[TheBlackAdder]

52. South Jerseyan--It's difficult to get on a township Democratic ticket without a Norcross blessing.

.

The party bosses in Bergen, Hudson and Essex counties control most of NJ, esp. north of I-195.

.

[Me.]

62. I Wonder If It's More He Lost

rather than she won.

[crazycatlady]

65. REading her Wiki now

He hasn't faced a primary challenge since 2004 and didn't take her seriously. He sent a surrogate instead of showing up for a debate. She won by 15 points. He did not call her to concede as he didn't have her number.

Her ground game probably included reaching out to people who don't usually vote in primaries, and the Latino community. AOC was an organizer for Bernie, so she was familiar with how a ground game works.

Also keep in mind that the race was the ONLY one on the ticket at the time as NY has two separate primaries (Federal in June, State in September).

[Me.]

69. That's Pretty Much My Point

He took the district for granted and as you stated didn't show up for the occasion. I suspect next time around may be different for her if she picks up a Dem primary challenger. You can also bet the Cons will move heaven and earth to find a candidate of their own. Another thing to be considered is that only 11% of the district turned out to vote which also could make a difference to races in the future.

[crazycatlady]

80. that turnout is actually typical

That was the only race on the ticket. In NY, the state primaries (held in September) got many more headlines (Cuomo being challenged by an actress, the IDC all facing primary challenges).

THe only other federal race on the ticket in NY was a senator I can't name on this forum. She did not face a primary challenger.

Another thing to consider about NY-- their primaries are SUPER closed. YOu have to change your partisan affiliation the year before in order to vote in a primary.

[Me.]

96. Actually, As A Nyer I Am Quite Familiar With How Things Work

and that low turnout was considered an anomaly here

[Autumn]

32. That's a very valid opinion

[samnsara]

30. i believe so.....

[SMC22307]

38. Who is arguing that?

If older elected officials are doing their jobs and bringing about positive results, then God bless 'em and keep them in office. If they're not, let the voters speak by electing someone who (hopefully) will.

[DonCoquixote]

39. it is

Now, this is not to dent that a lot of old politicos, especially white male ones, are indeed part of the problem, but sadly, young ones can be as right wing as anyone else.

However, a lot of the people who focus on AOC are the same people who ignored issues that we have been denying for years, like the fact we need to actually improve our messaging badly. Let AOC play worse cop to our bad cop, and make the GOP squeal for a deal, rther than trying to assure them that we want to be bipartisan and fair.

[guruoo]

49. It's just the age old debate over fresh talent vs experience nt

[EffieBlack]

51. Can an older, newly-elected Member be considered "fresh talent" or is age alone the issue?

[guruoo]

71. I sense that it's not just age, or age in and of itself.

It's complicated.

There's so much disinformation floating around which makes it nearly impossible to pin down anyone's true beliefs, or meanings.

btw, Remember this?

[betsuni]

53. I wish people would stop saying "new blood" and "fresh faces."

Maybe I have a touch of dyslexia because it turns into "fresh new bloody faces" and freaks me out.

[customerserviceguy]

55. Anytime

you play the divide and conquer game with attributes of people that are immutable, then, probably yes.

[Me.]

61. I've Sometimes Thought Of It As Profiling

[betsuni]

70. I don't want to go on the cart.

[pnwmom]

75. Perfect question. Thank you, EffieBlack.

[dawg day]

77. No. And I am 64.

We need to mentor the people who will lead the future, not insist on power for us. I'd live to see the ascent of leaders who have decades ahead.

[EffieBlack]

81. But isn't that still identity politics!

[tirebiter]

78. It's up to the voters

Different strokes for different folks. Making such things into an ideology is just plain stupid.

[oberliner]

79. Ageism seems to be the hip discrimination these days

[ananda]

83. Sounds like Ageism to me.

..

[whistler162]

95. more like common sense!

[Tom Rinaldo]

85. Diversity includes a full range of applicable ages

I'm reminded of affirmative action debates. No I do not advocate age quotas for members of legislatures. The advantage of having time to gather experience and achieve accomplishments will always favor the somewhat older over youth in running for office. So does the power of incumbency which can help members keep their seats for decades. So our elected bodies will never closely reflect demographics in terms of age, nor should they. But when an imbalance becomes extreme, in a relative sense, that is a valid cause for concern. It is good for our government to "look like America" to a reasonable extent. Age is part of that. If even noting age representation is "Identity Politics", than so be it.

Is supporting a younger person over another older one, because one feels that person brings a valuable perspective, informed by youth, to an office the same as arguing that an older official needs to make way for younger ones?

[EffieBlack]

87. Great post. Thanks

"Is supporting a younger person over another older one, because one feels that person brings a valuable perspective, informed by youth, to an office the same as arguing that an older official needs to make way for younger ones? "

I don't think it's the same. Just as I don't think that factoring in a minority candidate's race as a positive characteristic because one believes the POC brings a valuable perspective, informed by their experience of being a minority and whose presence in the position may make a diverse demographic feel represented is the same as voting for someone "just because they're black." But it IS dismissed in many quarters - including among Democrats and by many here on DU as "identity politics."

[Tom Rinaldo]

97. We are in full agreement. Thanks for starting a good discussion n/t

[TCJ70]

86. Identity Politics...ugh. Stupid term. Identity politics is just an insult the right uses against...

...Democrats so they can pretend they don't engage in pandering (which is what "Identity Politics" really is).

I don't think what you're describing is pandering, though. It's more of looking for a seat at the table and to not be discounted because of a lack of age.

[Maeve]

88. Whatever happened to nuance?

Liberals used to be good at it...(not picking on you, Effie, just noting how fallen our current discourse becomes...)

Older officials WILL make way for the younger; it is the nature of reality. But the younger need to learn from their elders as well, or they will make the same damn mistakes we did. As I move out of middle age, I see myself slowing down. I know my body and my brain don't work as they once did. But I also know more about how the world works than I did when I was younger. Lots of things change, but human nature hasn't. And the only way to govern all is to listen to all--but choose wisely which advice you will follow.

"Identity Politics" is a catch-phrase popular now. But it is just people pursuing their own group's interests, something that has been around forever. It fails when it refuses to look at the bigger picture, when it focuses on "me and mine" and ignores "you and yours" and "them and theirs" when trying to come up with solutions for "all of us". It was created to bring the neglected and downtrodden into the circle of power and for that, it is important. But we need to get back to politics as interaction and compromise, to what works for more of us, rather than what works for "just us".

I've reached an age where I won't vote for many people older than I am anymore--they need to teach the young and then step aside. Be mentors and sages; sit under their own fig trees. (Note: I didn't say I wouldn't vote for anyone older than me; there are always exceptions to any rule. And I want RBG to stay on as long as she can manage!)

[GoCubsGo]

93. Yes. nt

[whistler162]

94. If it is SO BE IT!!!!

If wanting some one younger than 70 for the toughest elected in the land especially after a disastrous four years and what is likely going to be a major job of recovering a little of our place in the world and the economy is, whatever, "Identity Politics" is is then so be it.

[Autumn]

99. Perfect answer. Thank you.

[EffieBlack]

104. Thanks

Do you feel the same way about trying to elect more women and minorities or do you think that kind of identity politics is bad?

[PubliusEnigma]

101. It is a way of attacking effective leadership by appealing to idealism. Much like Bernie does.

[matt819]

102. I have 30 years + on AOC

And, no I don't see it as identity politics or ageism.

I think it's an accurate reflection of the way things are. Sure, there's something to be said for people like Nancy Pelosi, who uses her powers for good (Luke Skywalker). In contrast, there are people like McTurtle, who has the same sort of experience but uses his powers for evil (Darth Vader). The key is knowing which is which.

I would argue the old Dems are better than old (and young and whatever) republicans, but even with old Dems there is a sense that their time has come and gone. Look, it's inevitable that change will come. These old and older pols are going to want to retire. Some will die in office. And, in the meantime, they have tremendous value and power, if they choose to exercise that power. Become aggressive mentors to people like Davids, and Omar, and AOC. Learn these young 'uns how the sydtem works and how to work that system. I do see one big problem as the years roll on. Millennials don't have patience for bullshit. What's the problem? What's the solution? Make it happen. But until we come up with a new form of government that allows that to happen, they need to learn how to make it happen with the structures we have in place.

[drmeow]

103. Are younger people making efforts

To gain political experience? Are they running for city Council seats, other local positions, etc.? I know that is what Kyrsten Sinema did.
Do they have political experience due to a job which required political savvy?

You don't walk straight into a regional VP position. You've got to have some management experience. The more you understand how the game is played the better your performance.

At the federal level I would rather not vote for someone who does not have any political experience. That applies to young and older candidates.

[EffieBlack]

108. We also need to differentiate between "age" and "longevity"

Are people questioning the age of an official or how long they've been in office?

Some older Members of Congress have been there less time than some of their younger colleagues. For example, Frederica Wilson, the Florida representative who nailed Trump's and Kelly's butts to the wall last year is 76 years old but has only been in Congress for 8 years. Compare that to Robert Aderholt from Alabama whose only 53 but has been in office for 21 years.

This is a particular issue for women and minorities who didn't have the opportunities that white men had to run for office and, thus, tended to get into politics later in life. For example, Nancy Pelosi has been in office for 31 years but didn't get elected until she was in her late 40s. If she had started when she was 30, like many of the men in office, and had a similar career trajectory, she would have become Speaker at approximately 50 instead of in her mid-60s.

[crazycatlady]

114. check out the group Run for Something

They were formed in the wake of 2016 to encourage young people to run for local and state offices. I get emails from them all the time about one of their candidates who was elected to offices like school board or city council.

Their goal is to build a young, progressive bench.

[johnp3907]

105. [post removed]

Yes, and anyone who makes that argument is “kinda dumb.”

[melman]

107. Well then

It's a good thing nobody did that.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

106. Is insisting that we should only be looking at

the "experienced" candidates, which are almost to a person over 70 already and many are north of 75, or will be by 2020, is THAT "identity politics?"

If not, why not?

I'm 70 myself. If some of the older politicians don't start opening the way for younger ones, there will simply be no one around to hope to step in when they start dying of old age.

And while I agree with the observation that Paul Ryan was a young politician who wasn't good (from a Democratic perspective), he's simply one of the many younger politicians Republicans have been moving into positions of power for a couple of decades now. We could learn something from that.

[EffieBlack]

110. It's pretty difficult to argue that looking at a candidate's experience is "identity politics"