“No” Country for Old Men
Jim Bunning and Charles Rangel, with nothing in common but well-styled silver hair, took over the Congressional spotlight this week by refusing to “go gentle into that night.”
The 79-year-old Bunning, called one of America’s Five Worst Senators by Time Magazine and described by Bill Clinton as “so mean-spirited he repulsed even fellow know-nothings,” made his last hurrah by single-handedly holding up for five days a bipartisan temporary extension of funding for unemployment benefits, doctors’ Medicare payments and highway workers’ salaries, among other uncontroversial purposes.
If Bunning dominated the media with his cantankerous, Tea Party-friendly display in the Senate before finally shutting up and sitting down yesterday, in the House another politician of his age, Charles Rangel, is about to be stripped of power after four decades of flamboyant service extending from the Watergate hearings through publicly questioning the mental status of Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin.
He is about to lose his job as chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee after being found guilty by the House Ethics Committee of taking corporate-sponsored trips, just the tip of an iceberg of corruption charges still ahead of him.
Bunning, who parlayed All-Star baseball fame into a political career, is the polar opposite of Rangel, a Korean War veteran who became a Harlem wheeler-dealer of the kind that dominated African-American representation in Washington during the pre-Obama era.
Share This
One went by the rules the other didn't. Being a veteran doesn't excuse corruption. I appreciate Rangels brave service as a youth, but that doesn't excuse him trying to cheat his taxes.
Readers who aren't necessarily ready to rush to fear a surge of ageism might want to think more about not this coincidental pair of events, but rather the replacement of Rangel by Pete Stark of California, and some months ago, the replacement of Dingell (in his eighties) by Henry Waxman of California. These replacements are not young, but they do represent a “new generation” takeover of powerful positions from older, declining parts of the nation and older, obsolescent politics by still-old, but newer kinds of politicians with newer politics (Sixties radicalized — post-Watergate revenge of liberals in Congress as well as in academia and elsewhere) from later-developing, more-vital and more important places now.
Waxman represents California's sillier newer politics, environmentalism, displacing unions and Detroit.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/findyourreps.xp…
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/findyourreps.xp…
Stark represents an older part of the Bay Area, but incredibly modern compared to Rangel's world.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/findyourreps.xp…
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/findyourreps.xp…
Food for thought.