Power over progress? Critics say ageing Democrats hurting party's future
WASHINGTON, May 28 — As a damning expose on Joe Biden's cognitive decline scandalises Washington, Democrats in Congress are facing their own reckoning over a seniority system that critics say is holding back younger talent.
Six Democratic lawmakers have died in a little over a year — dispiriting bereaved colleagues but also leaving the rank-and-file critically under-resourced when it comes to opposing President Donald Trump.
House Republicans passed Trump's sprawling tax relief and spending cuts by a solitary vote last week, approving a package that Democrats say will deprive more than eight million Americans of health care.
Democrats did not have the numbers to cause problems for the bill because of three empty seats on their side — all recently vacated by lawmakers in their 70s who had died after battling cancer.
'Imagine if one of the older and sicker Dems would've retired instead of died in office and what that would've meant for millions of people,' political consultant Rebecca Katz posted on X.
The complicated math means that even a full Democratic contingent would likely only have been able to delay rather than torpedo the bill.
But it is being seen as a lost opportunity that has laid bare the party's problems with ageing members clinging to office despite ailing health — in a party desperate for new blood.
One of the vacancies was the Virginia seat formerly held by Gerry Connolly, 75, who had been diagnosed with oesophageal cancer and died just a day earlier.
Oldest president
Democrats had just picked Connolly to be their leader on the powerful oversight committee, choosing his experience over the energy and social media savvy of Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, 40 years his junior.
'By elevating someone who was more of a standard politician, they sort of lost out on getting into the culture,' left-leaning political commentator Molly Jong-Fast told MSNBC.
'And ultimately that was, I think, a miss for Democrats.'
Age is a touchy subject among Democrats, with 82-year-old Biden's inner circle denying accusations in a new book by journalists Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson of covering up his glaring infirmity.
In the Senate the party is led by 74-year-old Chuck Schumer and in the House former speaker Nancy Pelosi, 85, still holds enormous sway two years after giving up the gavel.
Democrats do not have a monopoly on ageing issues.
Mitch McConnell, 83, was clearly ailing when he stepped down after 18 years as Republican leader in the Senate in January and Trump, 78, is set to become the oldest US president in history.
But the so-called 'gerontocracy' has been more harmful to Washington's minority party, frustrating the agenda of Democratic White Houses and allowing Republicans in Congress to absorb more defections.
At the heart of the problem is the Democrats' long-honoured seniority system, which prioritizes lawmakers based on experience when allocating plum committee assignments, leadership posts and office space.
'Contemptible little twerp'
As a result, top Democrats on more than half of the House committees are aged 70 or over. The mean age of these 20 party grandees is 69, compared with a more youthful 62 for Republicans.
And the problem is not confined to Congress.
Mourning gave way to frustration over liberal Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who clung on until her death in 2020 at age 87 instead of retiring with Barack Obama in office, allowing Trump to fill the vacancy.
There have been baby steps to address the gerontocracy but progress has been halting.
Gun safety campaigner David Hogg, 25, was elected as vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee in February and promptly called for primary challenges to 'out-of-touch, ineffective Democrats.'
This did not go down well among the party's old guard, with 80-year-old strategist James Carville calling Hogg a 'contemptible little twerp.'
But the revelations about Biden's deteriorating health, including a newly announced prostate cancer diagnosis, are an illustration for activists and analysts that the party needs to change course.
'If you are saying that democracy is on the ballot, if you are saying this the most important election of our lifetime, which they did say to the base, then the base expects you to act like it,' Jong-Fast added.
'They expect you to elevate the people who can speak better than the people who are your friends... And I think this is a sea change for the Democratic Party.' — AFP
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Malay Mail
37 minutes ago
- Malay Mail
Trump's hubris will deliver the hammer blow to the US and the world — Phar Kim Beng
MAY 31 — In a recent and poignant Time article, economist Richard S Grossman reminds us that when political leaders ignore economists and elevate personal pride over empirical analysis, economic catastrophe is not a possibility — it is a pattern. Grossman draws sharp historical comparisons: President Andrew Jackson's assault on America's nascent central bank and Winston Churchill's ill-fated return to the gold standard. Both decisions were rooted in ideological conviction and personal pride, not evidence or consensus. Now, in the second term of Donald J Trump, history threatens to repeat itself — only this time, on a global scale. Trump's self-referential style of governance risks destabilising not just the US economy but the very foundations of global economic interdependence. His actions echo Jackson and Churchill — but they are also amplified by a kind of hubris unique to this media-saturated age, where policy is shaped more by image than substance, by ego rather than expertise. Jackson's Bank War: Populism at the expense of stability In the early 1830s, President Andrew Jackson waged war against the Second Bank of the United States. Chartered in 1816, the Bank had functioned as a quasi-central institution, restraining inflation and regulating credit. Jackson, however, viewed it as a tool of elite corruption and vetoed its recharter in 1832, allowing it to collapse by 1836. His Specie Circular of 1836, which mandated payment for government land in gold or silver, drained the economy of liquidity and triggered the Panic of 1837. As chronicled by economic historian Peter Temin, this crisis caused GDP to contract by up to 30 per cent, and unemployment skyrocketed. It took nearly a decade for the economy to recover. Jackson's decision, made in defiance of economic logic, delivered a populist victory — and a national calamity. US President Donald Trump speaks with the media after a trip to Pennsylvania, at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, US May 30, 2025. — Reuters pic Churchill's gold standard gambit: Pride in decline Fast forward to 1925. Winston Churchill, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, committed Britain to returning to the gold standard at its pre-World War I parity — despite explicit warnings from economists like John Maynard Keynes. The move drastically overvalued the pound, making British exports uncompetitive and forcing deflationary wage cuts across industry. The economic damage was severe. Between 1921 and 1929, while the United States and France saw GDP gains of 40–50 per cent, Britain lagged behind with under 20 per cent. The North of England sank into chronic unemployment. The General Strike of 1926 and other labour uprisings signalled deep unrest. Churchill, clinging to imperial nostalgia and fiscal orthodoxy, stayed the course until 1931 — when a full-blown crisis forced Britain off the gold standard. Trump's economic nationalism: Narcissism over institutions Trump's second term is shaping up to be a repetition of these self-inflicted traumas. But while Jackson and Churchill made costly decisions for their nations, Trump's impact is transnational. His economic worldview is transactional, driven by an obsession with trade deficits and a conviction that tariffs will restore American greatness. This belief contradicts decades of economic research. Trade deficits are not inherently harmful, nor do tariffs reduce them. They tend to raise prices for consumers and provoke retaliatory measures from trading partners. Yet Trump persists, seemingly convinced that personal instincts are superior to expert counsel. He routinely undermines institutions like the Federal Reserve, publicly attacks international economic bodies such as the WTO, and treats trade as a zero-sum game. His policies, lacking in consistency and long-term logic, have already begun to erode global trust in American reliability — both as a trade partner and as a steward of global finance. From trade policy to global shockwave The world's largest economy cannot afford this kind of unpredictability. In contrast to Jackson and Churchill — whose economic errors had localised effects — Trump's decisions ripple through complex global supply chains, rattle markets, and stoke geopolitical tensions. His tariff wars have hit not just China but also traditional allies like the European Union, Canada, and Japan. The result? A deeply fragmented global trade environment. Allies no longer assume continuity in American policy. Investment flows hesitate. Emerging markets, many of them reliant on exports, suffer. Trump's economic strategy — fuelled by bravado and nostalgia — is incompatible with the integrated global system the US itself helped create. The theatre of strength, the reality of retreat Richard S Grossman rightly points out that Trump's view of tariffs is rooted in a misunderstanding of history. He romanticises the 19th-century Gilded Age, a time of high tariffs, while overlooking its accompanying instability, monopolism, and deep inequality. Trump's policies risk bringing back that era — not as triumph, but as cautionary tale. What truly binds Jackson, Churchill, and Trump is not simply error, but ego — the conviction that personal willpower can override economic complexity. But in Trump's case, this ego is magnified by media spectacle and a disdain for dissent. His economic policy is crafted not through consultation or deliberation, but through impulse. The coming hammer blow The most dangerous consequence of Trump's economic hubris is not just stagflation or market volatility — it is the collapse of global trust. Trust is the glue of the international economic system. When nations can no longer rely on US commitments, the temptation grows to seek alternatives — whether in digital currencies, alternative trade blocs, or parallel security arrangements. This erosion of trust could mark the twilight of US economic leadership. While the dollar remains dominant and American markets deep, overreach can accelerate decline. The American century — once built on openness, innovation, and stable leadership — now risks ending in retreat, with tariffs not as tools of power but as symbols of decline. Trump's economic nationalism, then, is not just policy. It is performance. And like all performances, it ends. The question is whether the final curtain will fall on American economic primacy — or whether institutions, allies, and economists can intervene in time to prevent the hammer blow from becoming permanent. * Phar Kim Beng, PhD, is professor of Asean studies at the International Islamic University Malaysia. ** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
Malay Mail
an hour ago
- Malay Mail
Pentagon chief warns of ‘real and imminent' China threat at Shangri-La Dialogue, urges Asian allies to boost defence budgets
In defence forum debut, Hegseth calls for Asian allies to step up Speech could cause consternation among allies Pentagon chief has blasted European allies in past for not spending enough SINGAPORE, May 31 — US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth warned today that the threat from China was real and potentially imminent as he pushed allies in the Indo-Pacific to spend more on their own defence needs. Hegseth, speaking for the first time at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, Asia's premier forum for defence leaders, militaries and diplomats, laid out how the Indo-Pacific region was a priority for the Trump administration. 'There's no reason to sugar coat it. The threat China poses is real, and it could be imminent,' Hegseth said, in some of his strongest comments on the Communist nation since he took office in January. He added that any attempt by China to conquer Taiwan 'would result in devastating consequences for the Indo-Pacific and the world', and echoed Trump's comment that China will not invade Taiwan on the president's watch. China views Taiwan as its own territory and has vowed to 'reunify' with the democratic and separately governed island, by force if necessary. It has stepped up military and political pressure to assert those claims, including increasing the intensity of war games around Taiwan. Taiwan's government rejects Beijing's sovereignty claims, saying only the island's people can decide their future. 'It has to be clear to all that Beijing is credibly preparing to potentially use military force to alter the balance of power in the Indo Pacific,' Hegseth said. But his comments on allies needing to increase spending is likely to cause consternation amongst partners, even though experts said Hegseth would face a relatively friendly audience in Singapore. China's Defence Minister Dong Jun has decided to skip the major Asian security forum and Beijing has sent only an academic delegation. Hegseth has previously taken aim at allies in Europe for not spending more on their own defence. In February, he warned Europe against treating America like a 'sucker' while addressing a press conference at Nato headquarters in Brussels. Yesterday, while delivering the keynote address at the Shangri-La Dialogue, French President Emmanuel Macron said Hegseth was justified in asking Europe to increase its own defence spending. 'It's hard to believe, a little bit, after some trips to Europe that I'm saying this, but thanks to President Trump, Asian allies should look to countries in Europe as a new found example,' Hegseth said. 'It doesn't make sense for countries in Europe to do that while key allies in Asia spend less on defence in the face of an even more formidable threat, not to mention North Korea.' US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth holds a multilateral meeting with Asean defence leaders on sidelines of the IISS Shangri-La Dialogue security summit, in Singapore May 30, 2025. — Reuters pic 'Stepping up' Spending on weapons and research is spiking among some Asian countries as they respond to a darkening security outlook by broadening their outside industrial partnerships while trying to boost their own defence industries, according to a new study by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, the organisation that runs the Shangri-La Dialogue. The spike comes even as the nations spent an average of 1.5 per cent of GDP on defence in 2024, a figure that has kept relatively constant over the last decade, it said. Hegseth suggested during his speech that allies in Europe focus on security on the European continent, so that Washington could focus on the threat posed by China in the Indo-Pacific, alongside more participation by allies in Asia. 'We're pushing our allies in Europe to own more of their security — to invest in their own defence... Thanks to President Trump, they are stepping up,' Hegseth said. But some of the Trump administration's early moves in the Indo-Pacific have raised eyebrows. The US moved air defence systems from Asia to the Middle East earlier this year as tensions with Iran spiked — an effort which took 73 C-17 flights. Hegseth, a former Fox TV host who has spent much of his first months in office focused on domestic issues, spoke to the international audience about issues that he has frequently talked about when in the United States, like 'restoring the warrior ethos.' 'We are not here to pressure other countries to embrace or adopt our politics or ideology. We are not here to preach to you about climate change or cultural issues,' Hegseth said. 'We respect you, your traditions and your militaries. And we want to work with you where our shared interests align.' — Reuters
The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
Trump hails Nippon Steel as 'great partner' for US Steel in raucous rally
WEST MIFFLIN (Pennsylvania): U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday lauded an 'agreement' between Nippon Steel and U.S. Steel at a political rally but stopped short of clarifying whether he planned to approve the companies' diplomatically sensitive merger. On a Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania-area stage decorated with signs celebrating 'American steel,' Trump declared the American steel company would remain American, while extolling its new Japanese partner. It is unclear whether he approves of a deal giving Nippon ownership, as sought by the firms, or whether he had formally given the merger the green light. 'We're here today to celebrate a blockbuster agreement that will ensure this storied American company stays an American company,' Trump told more than 1,600 people, including hard hat-wearing workers. 'You're going to stay an American company, you know that, right? But we're going to have a great partner.' The Japanese firm's planned acquisition of U.S. Steel, initially floated in 2023, divided the politically important state of Pennsylvania and its heavily unionized blue-collar workforce, and introduced tension into the normally friendly relations between Tokyo and Washington. Proponents of the transaction had hoped Trump's visit would end a tumultuous 18-month effort by Nippon Steel to buy the iconic American company, beset by opposition from union leadership and two national security reviews. Trump said the company would be 'controlled by the USA,' that no layoffs or outsourcing would occur, and that Nippon would invest billions of dollars to modernize U.S. steel mills to increase production. He also announced a plan, set to be implemented next week, to hike tariffs on imported steel from 25% to 50%. But Trump's remarks on Friday shed no further light on the contours of a deal that he would approve or whether a formal green light was in the offing. 'I have to tell you about Nippon, they kept asking me over and I kept rejecting - no way,' Trump said, adding 'I'm going to be watching over it, that it's going to be great.' The White House and the companies have not responded to requests for comment on the status of deal talks. Trump announced the rally and appeared to endorse the merger last Friday in a social media post, sending U.S. Steel's share price up over 20% as investors bet he would soon give it the go ahead. On Sunday, he sowed doubt, describing the deal to reporters not as the full takeover Nippon is seeking but as an investment with 'partial ownership,' and control residing in the United States. U.S. Steel is headquartered in Pennsylvania, which symbolized both the one-time strength and the decline of U.S. manufacturing power as the Rust Belt's steel plants and factories lost business to international rivals. The closely contested state is a major prize in presidential elections. 'We would not be here today without President Trump, who has secured the company's future by approving our partnership,' said Nippon Vice-Chair Takahiro Mori, who spoke before Trump. But in a sign of the many open questions that remain, Japan's top trade negotiator, Ryosei Akazawa, told reporters on Friday he could not yet comment on the tie-up. 'I am aware of the various reports and posts by President Trump on social media. However, there has not yet been an official announcement from the U.S. government,' Akazawa, in Washington for tariff negotiations, said at a briefing at the Japanese Embassy in Washington. Trump technically has until Thursday to decide whether to formally approve or scuttle the deal, after the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. last week completed a second review of the merger. But the timeline could slip. The road to Friday's rally has been a bumpy one. Nippon Steel offered $14.9 billion for U.S. Steel in December 2023, seeking to capitalize on an expected ramp up in steel purchases, thanks to the bipartisan infrastructure law. But the tie-up faced headwinds from the start, with both then-President Joe Biden and Trump asserting U.S. Steel should remain American-owned as they sought to woo voters in Pennsylvania ahead of the November presidential elections. Following the previous review, Biden blocked the deal in January on national security grounds. The companies sued, arguing they did not receive a fair review process, a charge the Biden White House disputed. The steel giants saw a new opportunity in the Trump administration, which opened a fresh 45-day national security review into the proposed merger last month. But Trump's public comments, ranging from welcoming a simple 'investment' in U.S. Steel by the Japanese firm to suggesting a minority stake for Nippon Steel, did little to shore up investor confidence. Reuters reported last week that Nippon Steel had floated plans to invest $14 billion in U.S. Steel's operations including up to $4 billion in a new steel mill if the Trump administration green lights its merger bid.
