There's a big powwow going on today in Oklahoma. A bunch of old men, and a few old women (i.e. my age and older), supposedly both Democratic and Republican, are discussing how to change politics in this country. They want more bipartisanship, less bickering, more cooperation, less hardball. Or so they say.
But I think Digby has it about right. Whenever the Democrats become too progressive, or too populist for the aristocracy, as they have this year, and whenever that message has a chance of succeeding in ousting a Republican administration and replacing it with a Democratic one, a few wealthy power brokers decide it's time to protect their economic interests by playing the "bipartisan" or "nonpartisan" card.
They don't do the same thing when Republicans become too conservative or downright ugly. I didn't see them having a conference when Bush was creating signing statements to subvert the will of the Congress, or when Tom DeLay was making the House his personal fiefdom, completely shutting out voices from the other side. The so-called voices of moderation don't ring the alarm when Republicans are asses, threatening K street unless they show complete loyalty to the Republican Party, and violating the Constitution and the rules of the Congress in order to force their will on the people. They only raise their "moderate" voices and demand bipartisanship when the Democrats have control of Congress or when Republicans are threatened by a progressive presidential candidate who dares to take the people seriously.
Furthermore, this conference, attended by people like Sam Nunn, Chuck Hegel, Christy Todd Whitman, and John Breaux, all "moderates," as well as Independents like Michael Bloomberg (who has been both a Republican and a Democrat), is fueling speculation that it could be a launching pad for an Independent run for president by Bloomberg. Remember the last time there was an Independent bid by a gazillionaire? When Republican George Bush Senior was threatened by that upstart Bill Clinton. It didn't work then and it won't work now.
The outcome of this conference is that the attendees may decide they must stop Obama or Clinton or whomever the Dems ultimately nominate with a run by an Independent. Pundits suggest that a Bloomberg run would help Republicans. I think they're wrong. Democratic registrations outnumber Republican registrations and there aren't enough Independents to elect Bloomberg. I think a Bloomberg run would hurt the Republicans much more. And if Obama is the candidate, Bloomberg can't match the energy of his campaign.
What's humorous to me is that this group of curmudgeons is screaming for bipartisanship in the midst of the Obama surge, which is arguably appealing to more Independents and members of the other party than any presidential campaign since that of Ronald Reagan when the "Reagan Democrats" first made their appearance. This makes me even more suspicious of the conference in Oklahoma. These people don't want bipartisanship. If they did, they would be supporting a candidate whose appeal crosses party lines. But instead of supporting him they are challenging all the candidates to be more bipartisan, so their agenda is suspect. Their goal, I fear, is to keep the conservative tax policies in place and prevent a disruption of the ever-increasing divide between rich and poor.
The members of the aristocracy, the rich old men and women in Oklahoma, may think they can control the outcome of the next election, but they may have misjudged the electorate this time around, which seems to be ahead of them. By reaching across party lines and speaking about national unity long before their conference in Oklahoma, Obama has already energized the next generation, who have come out for him more than for any candidate since Robert Kennedy. It appears the youngsters have gotten sick and tired of the oldsters long before the oldsters got sick of themselves.
This isn't just an election about change, it's an election in which the electorate has changed. As JFK said in 1960, "the torch has passed to a new generation of Americans." That new generation is post-boomer, and certainly post-McCain and Bloomberg, both of the pre-baby boom generation. This is a post-partisan generation, a color-blind generation, a gender-blind generation, an inclusive generation, a generation that didn't have to fight for equal rights. They simply inherited them as a result of the work their parents and grandparents did.
The younger generation is now politically awake and it is likely they will influence their boomer parents more than vice versa.
This election will surprise a lot of people.
