Skip to main content

The Democratic Party of Tomorrow Needs to Be the Democratic Party of Today

Word has it that Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is about to announce his run for the 2020 presidential election. Former Vice President Joe Biden has yet to decide on whether or not he's going to run. Last I heard, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hadn't even completely ruled out a potential 2020 run. I voted for Sanders in the 2016 Ohio Democratic primary. I voted for the Obama/Biden ticket in the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections. I voted for Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. These are all politicians I respect, admire, and proudly voted for when I had the opportunity. For as much as I respect and admire them, however, I think it's time for the Democratic Party to flip the page, start a new chapter, and bring something new, fresh, unexpected, diverse, and progressive heading into 2020 and beyond.

Donald Trump, at 70, became the oldest person to start his presidency in U.S. history. He's 72 now and emblematic of the aging Republican Party. Bernie Sanders is 77. Joe Biden is 76. Hillary Clinton is 71. They've all accomplished exceptional feats and led great careers in fighting for and helping to implement progressive causes, but it's time to start a new chapter.

If Sanders officially announces his run, he will become the 9th Democratic candidate running for the 2020 election. We're 22 months away from that election. For the entirety of the 2016 primary season, the Democratic Party saw just 6 major candidates announce they were running for the highest office in the land. In addition to Sanders, the following individuals have announced their plans to run for the presidency (age will be noted in parentheses): Pete Buttigieg (37), Julian Castro (44), John Delaney (55), Tulsi Gabbard (37), Kirsten Gillibrand (52), Kamala Harris (54), Richard Ojeda (48), and Elizabeth Warren (69).

Look at that list. Elizabeth Warren, who's the oldest in the list, is 8 years younger than Sanders, 7 years younger than Biden, and 2 years younger than Clinton. While I can all but guarantee that list isn't complete (not by a long shot), it's a fairly good starting point to show where the party should and will eventually be headed. The candidates are diverse in terms of gender, race, age, and background. This is emblematic of the Democratic Party of today (and tomorrow). In 2016, the Republican Party had a more diverse array of candidates than the Democratic Party, which aided right-wing trolls in creating memes suggesting the two parties' diversity in candidates accurately represented their parties' members overall, which of course is so wrong, it borders on being comical.

While we should appreciate, respect, admire, and learn from leaders of the past, it's time we use those accomplishments and that wisdom to set the stage for our leaders of today and tomorrow. It's time for those two periods to coincide, allowing for the Democratic Party of tomorrow to become the Democratic Party of today.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"