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)