Is it time for Feinstein to retire?
If re-elected, our senator would be 91 at term’s end
For many in California, Sen. Dianne Feinstein is an institution. First elected to the Senate in 1992, Feinstein has now served a quarter of a century. Because of her seniority, Feinstein is on key committees in the Senate, including Judiciary (where she is the ranking member), Appropriations and Intelligence. She has used her Senate position well. Over the course of her career, Feinstein has been a proponent of an assault-weapons ban, health care access for all and humane treatment of suspected terrorists. She has represented California admirably on a range of issues important to this state.
But Feinstein’s core issue is not so much her history in Congress as her future.
She is 83 years old and the oldest member of the Senate. If Feinstein runs for re-election next year, wins and serves the entire six years, she would complete her term at the age of 91. Feinstein has not revealed whether she will run for another term, but she has already held fundraisers. The question that growing numbers of supporters now discuss quietly is whether, despite her successes in the Senate, Feinstein should run yet again.
There are legitimate reasons for debating Feinstein’s future. The first centers on her health; Feinstein received a pacemaker a few months ago and, to her credit, was on the Senate floor the next day. Nevertheless, heart issues are serious. Moreover, Richard Blum, Feinstein’s husband, also has serious health problems.
The second reason concerns Feinstein’s politics. When first elected, Feinstein ran and behaved as a moderate Democrat, refusing to move closer to the liberal edge of the party. Such an attitude was acceptable then, but today Democrats in California tend to be much more liberal than Feinstein. She has particular exposure on environmental issues, where she has consistently favored the needs of California farmers over those who seek to minimize artificial redirection of water in ways that would harm endangered aquatic species. She also has been slow to criticize President Trump, who is scorned by the liberal Democratic community in California.
Simply put, Feinstein is now — and has been for several years — out of step with the core of the state’s Democratic Party.
The third, and perhaps most pressing issue, involves Feinstein’s age. While Feinstein seems vigorous enough at the moment, it’s hard to imagine that her energy would continue at the same level as a nonagenarian. Few people work stressful hours at that age because the body and mind can perform only so well at that point in life. Aging is a reality that is never pleasant but a reality nonetheless.
The voters seem concerned, to be sure. A recent statewide survey asked participants whether Feinstein should run for a fifth full term. With her age not mentioned, 48 percent agreed she should run, while 52 percent disagreed. Once Feinstein’s age was disclosed to the survey participants, however, only 38 percent agreed that she should pursue another term, compared with 62 percent who disagreed. Simply put, for voters, Feinstein’s age may well be a liability. Combined, these three factors could make re-election difficult for her.
Indeed, there are plenty of younger Democrats ready to run for the Senate. Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, who was recently re-elected with 81 percent of the vote in an 11person race, stands as a possibility.
Former hedge fund manager and major liberal Democratic benefactor Tom Steyer is another.
Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Burbank, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee and poster boy for keeping it on track, has become a nationally known and well-respected figure.
Another half-dozen Democrats could easily be added to the list. Yet, it’s hard to know which of them, if any, would risk their political careers to run against Feinstein, should she choose to seek another term.
The question of Feinstein’s long-term viability is critical, given the importance of the Senate and the need for California’s senators to be vigilant in protecting the state’s interests. In this sense, the issue is not only about her future, but also our state’s future.
There is nothing more difficult than the decision to leave one’s work, whatever the field, particularly if an individual enjoys his or her endeavor and continues to produce. Yet, for virtually all of us, a time comes to step down while we are still at the top of our game. Several years ago when then-U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall was asked why he was retiring from the nation’s most prestigious judicial institution at the age of 83, he answered candidly, “Because I’m old!”
Dianne Feinstein’s health may be fine at the age of 91; then again, it may not. In the brutal business of national politics, that uncertainty should not be left to chance.