WHO IS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY’S NEW LEADER? THE ANSWER IS OBVIOUS.

12/2/16

A few days after the election (See TRUMP WILL WIN, ANDWIN BIG, ON TUESDAY, 11/4/16), a lifelong friend asked me who the new leader of the Democratic Party was in the wake of the electoral disaster the Dems had just suffered.   I thought about it for a very short while and answered that, as far as I could tell, Senator Chuck Schumer (D., NY) was the new Democratic leader.    After all, Hillary Clinton is toast.   Nancy Pelosi, who has presided over the loss of something like 43 House seats during her tenure and who has become a caricature of the out-of-touch elitism that is the hallmark of the new Democratic Party, is definitely not the party’s standard-bearer, unless the Dems are even more clueless than yours truly thinks.  (See CLUELESSNESS, THY NAME ISDEMOCRAT!, 11/29/16).    Notable governors are few, and governors rarely become national party leaders anyway.    So my guess was that Chuck Schumer, as the last man standing, is now the senior man in his party.

My ideas on this issue, however, quickly changed.  It’s not because of Nancy Pelosi’s re-election as House leader; that was pretty much in the cards and it looks like the Dems were only willing to put up with a continuation of her failed leadership because they need the money and there isn’t much at stake; the House Democrats’ role will be limited over the next few years to standing in front of the Trump steamroller and flailing away with their usual incessant babbling of “principles” about which no one but their true believers care.   Mr. Schumer’s utter cluelessness (See, again CLUELESSNESS, THY NAME IS DEMOCRAT!, 11/29/16) is not the reason I no longer think he is the head of his party; indeed, his manifest inability to interpret the 2016 election, if anything, makes him even more qualified to represent a party whose most salient characteristic is being utterly out of touch with the population it aspires to manage, er, sorry, govern.

The answer to who will lead the Democratic Party is rather obvious and I am somewhat embarrassed that I wasn’t thinking broadly enough to see it when my friend asked:  it will be Barack Obama who will lead the Democratic Party forward.   Mr. Obama is only 55 years old.  He is articulate, intelligent, and charming and, by and large, well-liked by the American people.  His young and attractive family, which has captured the hearts of the public, has helped immensely in his building of this goodwill.   The media absolutely adore this guy.   (Remember back in 2008, when the media preferred him even to Hillary Clinton, the object of their unrelenting and shameless tank diving in 2016 and, indeed, in every year since 1992, with the exception of 2008?)   Mr. Obama has beaten the Republicans twice, thus displaying an ability that is increasingly rare among Democratic politicians.  Despite surface arguments to the contrary, he is utterly conventional in his thinking.   He is a true believer in Democratic dogma regarding the efficacy, indeed, the superiority, of decision making by those whose life experience has been confined to the public sector.   This combination of traits makes him popular among all wings of the Democratic Party.

No, I don’t anticipate that President Obama will pull a John Quincy Adams and return to elective office, though I wouldn’t completely discount the possibility.   And for at least the next four years, going the William Howard Taft route and taking a seat on the Supreme Court is not an option open to the President.    But that is not to say that this young, vigorous, intelligent, thoughtful, popular true believer cannot lead his party for a long, long time.

After all, who else do the Democrats have?