To quote a fellow Mason Citian, we Iowans “got trouble in River City!”
The Register recently announced that Bernie leads among Iowa Democrats. I’m grateful he tirelessly advances his Big Topic, as the “Top 1 percent” remains one of America’s most intransigent hurdles to real change.
What disappoints me is to see so many Iowans clinging to geriatric candidates who should long ago have passed the reins to younger stakeholders, who might secure a world where they not only can thrive but simply survive. Forged by mostly forgotten issues relevant in a now-gone world, at the end of the terms these oldest candidates seek, as a group they’d be between 75 and 82 years old! Faced with issues more life-or-death than any we’ve had to surmount since the likes of Hitler or hydrogen bombs, why is the largest number of Iowa’s voters so hypnotized by necrocracy?
I dunno, but the problem’s not new:
When I ran for the US Senate from Iowa in 2016, I faced an incumbent who’ll be 89 at the end of his current term — his seventh, having won his first when I was a senior at Clear Lake High. While Uncle Chuck does not (yet) belong to the “1 percent” against whom Bernie (and Liz) rail, in 2016 he was the 47th richest senator, worth an estimated $3.3 million dollars. How much in common do such people truly have with rank and file Iowa voters? Not much. Why does the majority keep supporting them? Beats me!