H O W A R D S B E N D

 Let’s have yesterday’s spaghetti and Tuesday’s meatloaf for dinner.  Is that milk in the refrigerator still good?  It smells OK.  It is very hard to get excited about leftovers for dinner and it is very hard to get excited about political leftovers carrying the presidential banner in the upcoming presidential election.

John Kennedy stepped into the presidential arena in 1960 and brought with him all the hopes and aspirations that a fresh new approach could bring to Washington.  Then in 1968, first Eugene McCarthy and then Robert Kennedy joined the political race with hopes of taking on the Washington political establishment which was perpetuating a hopeless war in Vietnam.  After the death of Robert Kennedy and the shunning of Eugene McCarthy by the Party, the political establishment of the Democratic Party nominated Hubert Humphrey, a long-time political figure in Washington and in the Democratic Party, to represent the Party in the 1968 presidential campaign.  Was Humphrey committed to ending the War?  Maybe yes and maybe no.  Was Humphrey committed to expanding the social programs and escalating the war on racial inequality in the US?  Possibly.  Was Humphrey committed to the Democratic Party and devoted to not making waves that would rock the establishment and to make sure that friends of the Party would be rewarded with patronage jobs and positions in the new administration?  Absolutely.

This pattern has been repeated over the past half-century by both parties.  It is the policy of promoting the long established and blindly loyal politician to the position of standard bearer for the party in the next presidential election.  Of course, there was the disastrous campaign of Walter Mondale, another middle-of-the road, loyal serving and well-respected member of the Democratic establishment who got pummeled in the 1984 presidential race against the popular Ronald Reagan.  The Democrats nominated Michael Dukakis a nice centrist Democrat in 1988 who lost to the uninspiring George Bush.  We all remember the fate of John Kerry in the 2004 presidential campaign.

 This strategy of picking the old established, loyal party member to run for president was so disastrous for the Democratic Party that the Republicans could not help but adopt this strategy by nominating Robert Dole in 1996, John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012.  These presidential campaigns all ended with the same result of the old and stodgy nominee who was automatically ordained by the party losing in the general election.

I believe that the Democrats are following this very old and failed policy of nominating the established, most recognized name in the party to be the standard bearer in the upcoming presidential election.  Of course, there is one slight difference this time and it is the fact that this established political party hack is a woman.  This leading Democrat is running not to make waves and to promise to fellow Democrats that policy will remain the same.  Is she really for improving the living standards of the left-behind electorate?  Maybe.  Is she for forging new roads to get us to a safer and more peaceful world?  Not so sure.  Is she for ending the grip that Wall Street, the military industrial complex or the oil and gas companies have on the economy?  Probably not.  Is she for combating global warming?  Maybe a little.  So the Democratic Party is about to nominate a middle-of-the-road candidate who promises to keep most of our current policies in place and not disrupt the political establishment or their corporate contributors with any new policy that might “rock the boat.”  Will this capture the imagination and enthusiasm of the many young people who are getting involved in the political process for the first time?  I kind of doubt it.  Does Hillary inspire any of the hope that Kennedy or Obama inspired in their run for office?  Do we listen to Hillary’s campaign speech and discuss pressing political issues and their solutions at the water cooler.  I don’t think so.  Feels like like same old same old.