WE DON'T NEED A POLITICAL "DONOR CLASS"

In the current Democrat anguish over the fate of Joe Biden certain “donors” have threatened to withhold funding unless he leaves the ticket. This was hyped by the media, which has gone so far as to assign these donors an interest group slot, equivalent to all the others, such as identity groups, etc. that make up the Democrat’s coalition. They are also referred to as the “donor class,” as if they constituted a permanent segment of the political universe, or as the “megadonors.” So ubiquitous are they that the USA is the only country in the world with a coterie of progressive, left-wing billionaires. Indeed there are now more of them on the Democrat’s side than the Republicans. 

So what do these big donors want or get? (They usually want more than they actually get). It isn’t particularly policies that favor “the rich,” but rather ego-satisfying access to address their fixations even more than their interests, such as climate change, etc. More than photo-ops, which are for the little guy, they want policy input. Big money gets them a sit-down with the candidate and chances to air their favorite notions about how things ought to be. Often enough it isn’t even their own money they are providing but an ability to make others, i.e. associates, customers, etc. cough up, so that “bundlers” get equal status.

What you essentially have is people who have been successful at one thing who are full enough of themselves to believe that their expertise translates into other areas, such as running the country. So multi-talented are they that leading politicians listen to them, at least as long as the money keeps coming. Mutual status boosting always occurs. Yet their opinions have no more intrinsic value than anyone else’s, and to the extent they are given more weight it is undemocratic. One of the most depressing things I’ve encountered is  personally meeting a politician about something only to hear their main focus being about fundraising, or see how much in awe they are of money and money people.

Yet politicians are not really to blame, given the system they have to operate in. They actually hate asking people for money yet have to spend an awful lot of time doing so. But that being the case they ought to be amenable to changing the process given how unpleasant it is for them. That is the best hope for reform- when they become so disgusted with what they have to do they try and change it. 

I don’t begrudge the rich for their wealth, but do draw the line at influencing government. As for the megadonors who fancy themselves more knowledgeable about how to run things, let them run for office or just shut up. 

THE ALLURE OF POWER

King George III called Washington the “greatest of men” for surrendering power after two terms. Only the not-so-great Franklin Roosevelt* broke that precedent, deciding that no one but himself could do the job. (The constitution was amended to prevent a recurrence of this). The American presidency in its present incarnation draws enormous egos  able to expend four years running for office in an insane unending campaign. The British just had an election with a campaign that lasted all of six weeks and power was transferred almost immediately. Our campaigns now never end, and despite the efficacy of a very  “democratic” process. Yet after all is said and done we are faced with two candidates a majority of the people do not want. This has to change to restore any kind of normalcy to the United States. 

At this moment it appears that Joe and Jill intend to hold on to power to the bitter end. Unless Jill lets go the administration will continue and a mixed bag of largely radical staff will continue to run the country, much as they have for some time now. The trappings of office are too powerful an elixir to easily surrender. The 25th Amendment is unlikely to be invoked in this instance and ought to be revisited. Does it make any sense for a VP to start a process that will lead to replacing the President and then become President (in this case) herself?  

It will take a large, possibly even a majority of Democratic representatives to broach the subject and right now most are sitting on their hands. It will take a fraught, monumental effort to displace Joe Biden. One of the characteristics of people with dementia is that they don’t know they have it by the time their mental state starts to decline. Consequently it is unlikely that Biden can be persuaded to step down unless there is overwhelming majority pressure, and/or Jill changes her mind. But neither she, nor more importantly, the senior staff want to surrender power. 

It is imperative that we change the electoral system or we shall devour ourselves just through rancor. To get better candidates we need a better system. As far as I am concerned the best president would be someone who doesn’t want to be president and who is not consumed by pursuit of that office. 

*Although routinely rated "great" by left-leaning historians, apart from clinging to power Roosevelt also mishandled things that he is usually given credit for solving. Modern economic research now shows that his policies actually prolonged the depression. When it comes to World War II if the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor had occurred in the face of today's media, would there not be scandalous inquiry?  I am not suggesting that America's role in the war was at all bad, but rather that it could have gone differently without Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt was determined to get into the war and did everything possible to provoke the Japanese, especially by cutting off oil. But that being the case, and that being the intent the nation, should have been fully prepared for war beforehand rather than being caught by surprise. Roosevelt was succeeded by Harry Truman, whom everyone thought of as just a common man. Nevertheless he ended the war and generally rose to the position of President, hence proving that no one is indispenable and that there was no necessity for Roosevelt serving two additional terms. The only indispensable man was Washington, but such a man only comes along over a few thousand years. 

THE OLD GUYS AREN'T GOING AWAY

Implicitly there is a sense that once this election is over we won’t have two old guys running for president anymore and younger people will take over. The problem with this is that there are many people at 75 or 80 who are more like 50 or 60 year olds used to be. You can see this in almost any old movie or newsreel. People look older than they do now.  

What is elderly has been rapidly changing as modern medicine and better health practices have increased lifespans. Those who demonstrate this are still “outliers” and more fortunate than others, but their numbers are increasing as a population segment. At the same time we have young people in their 20s who now seem to be experiencing prolonged adolescence. 

Clearly something has changed, as the stages of life seem to have revised significantly for many people. Thus, we may expect more older active lives, still contemporary and no longer perceived as elderly despite the years. With the “baby boomer” generation this population will be larger than ever. We can only hope that the wisdom that used to come with age is not a casualty of this increased dynamism.