The
Republicans recently held their convention in Tampa, which served as a
coming-out party for the next generation of conservative leadership.
Then the Democratic Party convened in North Carolina to reconfirm their
choice of leadership. Comparing the events of the two weeks, one thing
has become very apparent: the GOP has a surplus of promising young
leaders, while the Democratic Party is heavy with age, containing very
few to whom to pass the baton.
I always think of the slate of candidates coming together to run for a presidential election as somewhat akin to the annual creation of the NCAA basketball tournament. Here, though, there are only two brackets -- one for each party -- and each bracket has only eight to twelve competitors. Unlike the NCAA, we start to fill in our imaginary brackets three years ahead of competition on every quadrennial Wednesday after the first Monday in November, after the votes have been tallied the night before.
Let's imagine what brackets will start to emerge from the political classes on November 7, 2012. If Romney wins, then we know he's the number-one pick for the GOP side in 2016. But our little thought experiment identifies the next set of leaders only if we assume that Romney loses. What then? It's open season for conjecture. We're working here under the assumption that the GOP does well enough in the House and Senate races to remain a viable institution that the young leadership will still wish to serve.
It's not enough just to throw names out. We need to come up with a set of standards that will lead us to a set of plausible, electable candidates. I've chosen these:
Criterion number 1: Must have served in the House of Representatives for at least 6 years or in the Senate or as a governor for four years. This narrows us to candidates with the bare minimum of experience. Yes, the bar is higher for service in the House, but many seats in that body are so safe that a higher bar is justifiable.
I always think of the slate of candidates coming together to run for a presidential election as somewhat akin to the annual creation of the NCAA basketball tournament. Here, though, there are only two brackets -- one for each party -- and each bracket has only eight to twelve competitors. Unlike the NCAA, we start to fill in our imaginary brackets three years ahead of competition on every quadrennial Wednesday after the first Monday in November, after the votes have been tallied the night before.
Let's imagine what brackets will start to emerge from the political classes on November 7, 2012. If Romney wins, then we know he's the number-one pick for the GOP side in 2016. But our little thought experiment identifies the next set of leaders only if we assume that Romney loses. What then? It's open season for conjecture. We're working here under the assumption that the GOP does well enough in the House and Senate races to remain a viable institution that the young leadership will still wish to serve.
It's not enough just to throw names out. We need to come up with a set of standards that will lead us to a set of plausible, electable candidates. I've chosen these:
Criterion number 1: Must have served in the House of Representatives for at least 6 years or in the Senate or as a governor for four years. This narrows us to candidates with the bare minimum of experience. Yes, the bar is higher for service in the House, but many seats in that body are so safe that a higher bar is justifiable.
No comments:
Post a Comment