It’s never too early to start thinking about the next election. Now that the dust has settled on the 2014 midterms which have essentially undone the transformation of American politics produced by Franklin Roosevelt, here’s something to chew on about the 2016 election. The following U. S. Senators up for election in 2016 will be over 75 at the time of the election:
| Senator | State | Party | Date of Birth |
| Richard Shelby | Alabama | Republican | May 6, 1934 |
| John McCain | Arizona | Republican | August 29, 1936 |
| Barbara Boxer | California | Democratic | November 11, 1940 |
| Chuck Grassley | Iowa | Republican | September 17, 1933 |
| Barbara Mikulski | Maryland | Democratic | July 20, 1936 |
| Harry Reid | Nevada | Democratic | December 2, 1939 |
| Pat Leahy | Vermont | Democratic | March 31, 1940 |
or, said another way, three of the incumbents are Republicans and four are Democrats. If re-elected they would all be over 80 at the end of their terms. Don’t be surprised if some of them decide not to seek re-election or are unable to seek re-election for reasons of death or infirmity.
A field with fewer incumbents will really change the dynamics of the election.
Since the Great Society – and that’s basically one whole adult lifetime – the Democrats have followed a politics of grievance strategy cobbling together groups who in fact did, or were told they had, cause against primarily two bogeymen: “the rich,” and “the religious right.”
There have been successes. For example, homosexuality happens, let them marry or join with all attendant benefits of marriage. But it seems to me not only have the grievances against the rich failed, they have been largely counterproductive, creating the proverbial perpetual underclass. Further, the left is now highly populated by the very rich and powerful they railed against. After 50 years I think those who were going to stick it to the man realize they have been sold a cruel joke. And it’s really not that complicated. The early 60s Democrats got hijacked by the ultra liberals, masquerading as “leaning forward.” Over reach.
The corporate wing of the Republican Party is little to no better. I could be dreaming, but perhaps this time the era of Big Government may really be over. Maybe we small government types will have a period of influence. As the pension crisis in IL illustrates, there are previously non-operative boundary conditions that are going to force some hard decisions. On the other hand, the notion of a free lunch seems perpetually seductive.
What evidence is there that the new Republican Congress will be any less the lackeys of big business & Big finance in particular? Or that the party leadership will be less inclined than before to fund & support big defense, foreign interventionism, & open borders?
Not to mention the security state. Or the fact that SS, Medicare & interest on the debt are effectively untouchable expenses guaranteed to grow.
Where’s the smaller government going to happen?
Quite frankly, ice, there is no evidence, there is only hope. Surely the quick change in Democrat fortunes is not lost on the Republican leadership. Further, I think the income lag for middle class workers has reached a point where voter apathy will be less for a few years.
If I’m wrong then we will see a ping pong in political fortunes. And just as the pension problem has been pushed to the limits for states and cities, so too have the country’s finances, the size of the safety net and general meddling by government. Example: for all the bullshit and hype and subsidy, the people don’t give a rats ass about supposed global warming. That’s a pragmatic view, as opposed to idealistic save-the-world, born of real issues and constraints faced by people.
Great insight!
Surely the quick change in Democrat fortunes is not lost on the Republican leadership.
Apparently it is, as Sessions and Boehner are already dropping hints about a general amnesty to be introduced next year, one that is larger than Obama’s proposal. Already seeing the asshole Republican voters whine about it on Twitter. Personally I’m enjoying the sweet, yummy taste of their tears of unfathomable sadness, and look forward to more in the next couple of years. That’s just the kind of mean-spirited bastard I am.
I just don’t understand why people like Boehner & McConnell & the rest of the Republican leadership, most of whom have been around a while, are expected to start doing anything OTHER than what has brought them to their current exalted status. People generally don’t change their behavior until they have to – and the Republican leadership all got rewarded for all the things they’ve been doing for years.
“but perhaps this time the era of Big Government may really be over”
There is really no history to support that. There is a history of hyper-aggressive, large scale military action. There is a history of buying votes with unfunded giveaways to the elderly, their base.
” But it seems to me not only have the grievances against the rich failed”
Boy have they. The rich have just gotten richer and now they actually believe that they are victims. I suspect that is because while there is talk about the wealthy, actual policy has actually favored them. I guess that when you control the media, the Congress and the financial sector it is pretty hard to lose out.
Steve
And so, steve, why would you not want to minimize the size and power of government? Because if we just had the right pols in place the regulations they pass would not be turned in favor of the wealthy? Subsidy would not be turned in their favor? Organizations like Fannie and Freddie would not ultimately benefit them? Tacit approval of Fed policy would not benefit them? Fiscal spending stimulus would not benefit them disproportionately? You basically vote for what you say you find objectionable.
Let us not forget that it is big government that keeps the healthcare industry over priced, and if it were not for the filthy rich PE investors purchasing healthcare companies, the the filthy rich ER doctors would have nobody to pay their grossly inflated salaries.