This article unnecessarily frames this phenomenon negatively.
Democrats desperately need to shuffle out leadership and replace them with fresh strong leaders who can combat MAGA and offer solutions that aren't status quo.
"The middle" is just shorthand for "status quo," and it has been quite clear since at least 2016 that nobody on either side of the aisle is happy with the status quo.
It's so odd that the article seems to imply or indirectly frame retiring at a normal age as something that is unfortunate or a little sad.
We desperately need more 30-40-somethings in Congress who understand how the modern world works. The 60+ year olds with few exceptions understand the world they find themselves governing in, with social media, AI, and other features of modern life making our lives look unrecognizable compared to just 10 or 20 years ago.
These aren't the leaders leaving. They're the rank-and-file.
We're seeing right now that a change to the status quo is at least as likely to be worse, not better. It's very easy to call for things to be different; it's very hard to come up with something different that gets wide approval.
So I get nervous when people call for "change", without specifying what change. And especially when they cite their inexperience as a virtue. (That applies to 80-year-olds as well as 30-year-olds.)
I do wonder if these Senators are missing an opportunity. The status quo gets to be the way it is because people fear the alternative will be worse. But we're rapidly reaching a point where the alternative cannot be worse.
I definitely didn’t just mean leadership like speaker of the house or senate leaders, I mean leadership as in congress itself, because by definition members of congress are all party leaders compared to more local levels of politics.
Many of the rank and file need to be replaced.
The median age of the senate is over 60 years old, and many congresspeople are staying in seats long after their health has badly deteriorated (Mitch McConnell and Diane Feinstein as recent examples).
Besides just age, I am also specifically dealing what change is merged. Democrats need congresspeople who understand how the modern systems of society and how their opposition works. This isn’t about age, as people like Bernie Sanders clearly understand those concepts well and knows how to articulate them.
But then you have leaders like Chuck and Nancy who are clearly not what they used to be. In the last presidency they were negotiating with Trump like they were old pals in the same of party. Now Nancy Pelosi is pulling a Diane Feinstein and Chuck Schumer is coasting.
This article unnecessarily frames this phenomenon negatively.
Democrats desperately need to shuffle out leadership and replace them with fresh strong leaders who can combat MAGA and offer solutions that aren't status quo.
"The middle" is just shorthand for "status quo," and it has been quite clear since at least 2016 that nobody on either side of the aisle is happy with the status quo.
It's so odd that the article seems to imply or indirectly frame retiring at a normal age as something that is unfortunate or a little sad.
We desperately need more 30-40-somethings in Congress who understand how the modern world works. The 60+ year olds with few exceptions understand the world they find themselves governing in, with social media, AI, and other features of modern life making our lives look unrecognizable compared to just 10 or 20 years ago.
These aren't the leaders leaving. They're the rank-and-file.
We're seeing right now that a change to the status quo is at least as likely to be worse, not better. It's very easy to call for things to be different; it's very hard to come up with something different that gets wide approval.
So I get nervous when people call for "change", without specifying what change. And especially when they cite their inexperience as a virtue. (That applies to 80-year-olds as well as 30-year-olds.)
I do wonder if these Senators are missing an opportunity. The status quo gets to be the way it is because people fear the alternative will be worse. But we're rapidly reaching a point where the alternative cannot be worse.
I definitely didn’t just mean leadership like speaker of the house or senate leaders, I mean leadership as in congress itself, because by definition members of congress are all party leaders compared to more local levels of politics.
Many of the rank and file need to be replaced.
The median age of the senate is over 60 years old, and many congresspeople are staying in seats long after their health has badly deteriorated (Mitch McConnell and Diane Feinstein as recent examples).
Besides just age, I am also specifically dealing what change is merged. Democrats need congresspeople who understand how the modern systems of society and how their opposition works. This isn’t about age, as people like Bernie Sanders clearly understand those concepts well and knows how to articulate them.
But then you have leaders like Chuck and Nancy who are clearly not what they used to be. In the last presidency they were negotiating with Trump like they were old pals in the same of party. Now Nancy Pelosi is pulling a Diane Feinstein and Chuck Schumer is coasting.
The Democrats absolutely need to shake off their milquetoast leadership and get some people in willing to fight the good fight.