
by Danny May
WEEKLY UPDATE 8/31/08
A Meeting of the “Families”
American political parties tend to function as oligarchies,
with their control shared by powerful “families”
in a manner eerily reminiscent of mafia crime bosses. As we
move from Barack Obama’s coronation in Denver to the
general election this November, we are witness to the dynamic
interplay of three such factions within the Democratic party,
each providentially graced with the DNA of political genius--
the Kennedys, who are perhaps feeling the last of their half-century
grip on their party and the nation slip through their hands;
the Clintons, still smarting from the unexpected interruption
in the fulfillment of their apparent destiny; and the Obama
people themselves, so new at this and yet so suddenly powerful.
Let’s take a closer look at these three factions.
When Bill Clinton was campaigning to be our 42nd President,
he became famous for the expression, “I feel your pain.”
Today the pain he feels is quite obvious, and, by God, he’s
honestly earned it. Upon vacating the White House eight years
ago (and in a manner widely considered unseemly for a former
President) Clinton immediately plunged himself into partisan
politics— first as an unprecedentedly vocal critic of
his successor, and then as campaigner-in-chief for his wife’s
own run for the Presidency. And so today Bill Clinton feels
the pain of the lumps and bruises he accumulated during the
2008 primary season at the hands of Obama and his minions.
Indeed, he finds himself unfairly tarnished as a racist and
his legacy accordingly diminished. Furthermore, both Bill
and Hillary are on record criticizing their own party’s
standard-bearer for a list of imperfections high among them
his alleged inexperience. And yet now, in order to maintain
their status and clout, the Clintons must convincingly appear
to transcend their bitterness at having Hillary’s nomination
stolen by the upstarts and sincerely work toward Obama’s
victory, even as they might well secretly root for the Republican
victory that could blaze her path to the White House in 2012.
Concurrently the Kennedy Clan, long the royalest family of
American politics, has seemingly passed the Torch of Camelot
to Obama with ailing Senator Ted’s stirring speech on
the convention’s opening night. Having boldly forsaken
their nearly two-decade marriage of convenience to the Clintons
in order to board the Obama bandwagon, the Kennedys certainly
appear to be graciously releasing their multigenerational
hold on the Democratic Party. But might the Kennedys be simply
repositioning themselves for the long haul, voluntarily taking
a strategic retreat? Perhaps. None of the most prominent of
the Kennedy cousins— Maria Shriver, RFK Jr., Caroline,
or Patrick— seem poised to seize national office anytime
soon. Aligning themselves with Obama before the first primary
votes were cast was certainly risky; had Hillary weathered
the storm and prevailed, the Kennedys would have been virtually
banished from the party, forced to operate as a government-in-exile,
as they had during the LBJ Administration. But would they
have fared much better supporting a Hillary regime? Probably
not, they must have calculated. There’s only enough
power to go around, and Bill himself would probably eat up
most of the leftovers by serving in one capacity or another,
officially or otherwise. An Obama victory this November, however,
would guarantee a voice for the Kennedy clan for the foreseeable
future.
The Obama camp, meanwhile, is relatively new at this game,
but they are very compelling and smart. They distinguished
themselves very early in the primary season from history’s
discard pile of idealistic upstarts with their considerable
political savvy and organizational skills. And they are more
numerous than one might think-- along with his passionate,
accomplished wife Michelle and his long list of celebrity
supporters, Barack Obama counts among his inner circle such
up-and-coming sharpies as Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick.
The collective political talent in this triumvirate of families
is unprecedented in American history. If the Kennedys, Clintons,
and Obamas can put aside their differences, they should win
not only the White House but also both houses of congress
with enough of a mandate to shape our future for many years
to come. Conversely, if they cannot rise above their petty
squabbles, they perhaps deserve to lose and might well hand
the Presidency to Republican Senator McCain.
A Back-to-School Issue-- the Amethyst Initiative
Back in 1984, largely in response to the relentless lobbying
efforts of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the legal drinking
age in the United States was raised to 21. The results were
immediate and irrefutable— drunk driving death rates
plummeted, particularly among the young (down 32%, a thousand
lives per year.) But what effect did this have beneath the
ivory tower, the insulated environment of the college campus?
Not surprisingly, college kids continued to drink. But by
making it illegal for most collegians to do so, the 1984 law
drove college drinking underground, so to speak. What had
been “social drinking” in bars and clubs (with
its attendant drunk driving and resultant highway carnage)
eventually transformed into guzzle-til-you-puke “binge-drinking”
within the campus gates, with enforcement of drinking laws
falling to campus security forces and college deans.
Now the presidents of a hundred or so colleges and universities,
led by former Middlebury College President John McCardell,
have joined forces under the banner of the “Amethyst
Initiative” in an effort to initiate "an informed
and dispassionate debate" over the federal law that made
21 the de facto national drinking age. "This is a law
that is routinely evaded," claims McCardell. "It
is a law that the people at whom it is directed believe is
unjust and unfair and discriminatory."
Give me a break! Since when is the fact that a law is “routinely
evaded” become grounds for its repeal? (A devilish logician
might well apply such reasoning to campus date-rape.) And
surely these eminent scholars know that our legal codes (and
Constitution) are replete with arbitrary limits-- one must
reach the age of thirty to join the Senate, thirty-five to
become President; sixteen to drive, eighteen to smoke. And
“discriminatory”? The only apparent discrimination
is against kids wealthy enough to drink their way through
private college. The unfortunate night-schooler, after all,
working full-time by day, has little time for beer-pong. All
in all, this Amethyst Initiative smacks of elitism, with the
implicit message that a perfectly good federal law shouldn’t
necessarily apply to Ivy Leaguers who wish to socialize like
mommy and daddy do. Worse yet, it might well be an attempt
on the part of college administrations to relieve themselves
of the burden of drinking law enforcement that has, unfortunately,
become their responsibility.
(Danny May can be reached
at DLTMAY@AOL.COM)
|