Thread by @whstancil

Basically just a broken record at this point, but the problem facing Democrats, most fundamentally, is that they're a gerontocracy

It's not just that the people in charge are old (but they are so, so old), it's that they THINK old. And by that I don't just mean that they're more conservative than they should be. It's that they're stuck in a version of America that no longer exists

They still envision America as a country dominated by Archie Bunker types (which it arguably was, in their youth), and think the key to politics is pandering to those Archie Bunker types. They still envision America as a place where liberals have to hide their views

They're extremely vulnerable to any argument about politics or policy that starts with the premise that backlash is a greater threat than inaction. They're vulnerable to any argument about politics that assumes the average American is a middle-aged white male conservative.

Dem leaders are, themselves, simply not very reflective of the country, much less the party they're leading. I mean, to be blunt, the party is mostly lead by older white men, who mostly listen to other white men! That's the group that is literally LEAST likely to be Democrats.

That's partly an age thing too: older Americans are less diverse, and previous generations were more male-dominated. Again, Dem leaders exist as a kind of time capsule of a country that no longer exists.

Older Dem leaders are vulnerable to the idea that politics is ultimately a chummy affair, which reflects both their age and their demographics. The sense that many of younger liberals have that we're in a fight for our lives is completely foreign to this generation of leaders.

And there are other dangers of gerontocracy, too: declining capabilities (see: Feinstein, D.). The reality that representation in vitally important bodies is now basically tied to actuarial tables (see: Breyer, S., and Leahy, P.).

And finally there's the fact that gerontocracies are so difficult to dislodge.

It seems counterintuitive! These are not nimble, effective people. But they've simply been around for so long, and powerful for so long, and have accumulated so much social and political cachet, they have a kind of dynastic hold on the levers of power that just can't be shaken.

No one can challenge Pelosi, many up-and-comers have been pushed aside because there's no realistic prospect for advancement as long as she and her allies sit at the top of the pyramid.

The Clinton dynasty still looms over Dem politics, too, even as the Clintons themselves seem to have been thoroughly humiliated in the real world. In a gerontocracy, advancement is often a function of proximity to the permanent holders of power, not competence.

And because of the way promotion is tied to loyalty to the party leaders, the Democratic gerontocracy even infects the lower, younger ranks of the party. The gerontocrats serve as gatekeepers, only elevating newcomers who reflect their entrenched ideology.

The result is a party that is simply decaying in place. A year after facing perhaps the worst, most corrupt, most grotesque, and most incompetent president in US history, the Democrats seem to have completely run out of steam.

Its policy agenda is paralyzed, voters are deserting it and even its own base is wavering, and barely anyone in charge seems to have any ideas besides giving the same old speeches or trying the same old policies.

There is a desperate need for Democratic renewal - new leaders who are elevated because they genuinely excite people and get things done, not because they're a long-time ally of some party eminence. But there's no room. There can't be any renewal while the gerontocracy survives.