Why Sen. Feinstein should not run again
When I was learning about politics in Tucson in the mid1960s, our senator was Carl Hayden, an advanced octogenarian and the butt of many jokes. One of the nastiest was that he was already dead, but was being wheeled in for a vote in an embalmed state by an aide.
I thought of Hayden when I read the news reports last week of Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s town hall appearances in Los Angeles and San Francisco, mostly civil, but sometimes angry events in which she was assailed for not being tough enough on President Donald Trump.
The senior California sena-
tor handled the crowd reasonably well, trying to explain her positions and refusing to bend to catcalls. She will have to decide soon about whether to run for a fifth six-year term next year. The meetings showed she is not decrepit.
But there comes a time when all politicians must decide to leave the political stage. And that time is imminent for Feinstein, who was first elected to the Senate in 1992 after a long career as a San Francisco supervisor and mayor.
Let’s do the math: As the oldest U.S. senator, Feinstein will turn 84 in June. She will be 85 when her next term begins. She will be 91 when it ends. She is approaching the territory of Carl Hayden, who was 92 when he finally quit.
I realize I will be accused of ageism in suggesting that she not run again. But the issue here isn’t whether someone in their late 80s can’t have a vigorous life and contribute to society. I see many people at my mother’s residence, Palo Alto’s Channing House, who do.
The issue is whether Feinstein can be at the top of her game in a way that being a U.S. senator demands. Most of us who are honest realize that we lose something as we age — even those of us who are comparative youngsters in our 60s. Feinstein needs to recognize the inevitable.
I’ll acknowledge that I have not always agreed with the senator: I dislike her sympathy for the intelligence agencies, her support of the death penalty, her defense of the Syrian bombing.
But as a centrist Democrat with Republican friends, she has been an effective senator. She’s made major contributions to the environment, helping strengthen protections for the oceans, redwood forests and water quality. She’s sponsored decent judicial candidates. When she denounced torture by the U.S., I applauded.
Feinstein is doing battle now with those who want her to denounce the Trump regime more forcefully — or fight battles that President Barack Obama lost, like a single-payer health system.
For all that brouhaha, the real reason to conclude that her time is coming is not her stance on any particular issue. It is the cruelty of the calendar — and the need for fresh blood in a critical job.
If I were betting, I would wager that Feinstein will run again: She could serve for a couple of years and then leave the choice of her successor to the new governor.
It’s a way of controlling her legacy more effectively. I have little doubt that she will be re-elected if she puts her name on the ballot.
But she needs to leave the Senate before she becomes the target of Carl Hayden-like jokes. Barbara Boxer, seven years younger than Feinstein, did the right thing when she stepped down last year at age 76. California’s senior senator should do the same.