9 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
michaelflutist's avatar

More like a longtime Congressman who thinks he's earned the right to decide when to retire. You don't have to agree, but people like him are usually given that respect. There's a strong argument to be made that the margins in the House and the imminent threat to democracy dictate a different kind of thinking, but this is probably more the rule than the exception for members of Congress regarded as institutions in themselves.

Expand full comment
slothlax's avatar

I don't agree at all. Being a member of the House is a two year job, acting like it's some kind of lifetime appointment is straight up insulting.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

If everyone left after 2 years, the lobbyists would rule even much more than they do now, so I think that's a really off the wall extremist point of view. On the other hand. I'm not saying he shouldn't retire now. In fact, I think that would be the most honorable thing for him to do. But the number of historical precedents behind his actions is innumerable. And he's done quite enough for it to be repugnant for anyone to call him a "bitch", which is also a gendered insult that means to belittle him as female. You didn't do that, but I think the level of vituperation against him should be toned down a little bit.

Expand full comment
slothlax's avatar

I agree that bitch was uncalled for.

I never said anyone shouldn't run for reelection, but if the justification is "I just like being in Congress", then I'm completely unsatisfied with that.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

Totally understood.

Expand full comment
JanusIanitos's avatar

I get that thinking but it's a wholly selfish viewpoint for him and anyone else in that position.

Fact is that these jobs are at their core positions of public service. They exist to help steward the nation and its people in a direction that aligns with the values and enrichment (in all meanings of the word, not only financial) of its people. It is not a job that exists as a hobby or for the benefit of the people filling it. Staying in the position when they are sufficiently aged that they are not able to give it their all, that they are sufficiently divorced from the future needs of the nation and its people, that they are sufficiently divorced from the zeitgeist, should not be the norm. Should there be exceptions, people who are good choices despite that? Yes. But they should be exactly that: exceptions.

Yes, there's been a lot of backsliding on this with greed and disappointment abound. When someone like Clyburn sticks around for what seems like the reason of "I've done this as long as I can remember" it reflects poorly on him. If he was going around talking about it with less entitlement and more like he felt that for reasons XYZ that he was specifically suited to handle the challenges of the present era and that he felt he was still suited to the job it might be different.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

Is there evidence that he's not able to give his all or is divorced from the needs of the people? I wouldn't overconclude from something he was quoted as saying on one occasion to mean that he's lost core values he's committed to working toward.

Expand full comment
JanusIanitos's avatar

No one, not even the most exceptional of individuals, is capable of giving any taxing and challenging job their all at the age of 84. Age takes its toll on all of us and those tolls are going to show up even stronger once people start to hit their 80s.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

I disagree. Mahathir Mohammed became Prime Minister of Malaysia again in his 90s after a couple of decades out of office and saved Malaysia from the disarray caused by the corrupt PM who preceded him. Some exceptional people can do great jobs late in life.

Expand full comment