Why Dianne Feinstein Deserves to Run for Reelection

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)

There is an old adage that I like to point out, that experience is only a problem in two professions: politics and prostitution.  There is no greater threat against an experienced senator or congressman than saying that they are a "career politician" and that they are "out-of-touch" or need to move aside from a new generation.  This has always bothered me, mostly because we live in a democracy so if you don't want someone of this generation, no one double checks that you're not being discriminatory when you cast your ballot, but also because experience is a highly underrated virtue in politics.  Frequently it's confused with corruption, as so many people believe that you cannot stay at the top echelons of power without becoming corrupt, or having no connection to your constituents back home.  This isn't the case, though, and is exhibited by the reaction I've seen to the announcement yesterday by Sen. Dianne Feinstein that she will be seeking reelection.

Despite the fact that they've all served more than 35 years in the Senate, Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley, Thad Cochran, and Pat Leahy are not the oldest members of the United States Senate-that distinction falls to Sen. Feinstein, who was elected to the body when all of these men were in or entering their third term.  Feinstein, though, has become something of an institution in her own right during that time, and at the age of 84 has decided to run for a sixth term in the US Senate, likely a foregone conclusion in terms of victory in the sapphire-blue California (particularly in a midterm where her party doesn't hold the White House).  Feinstein's announcement was largely anticipated, though some assumed considering her advanced age and with the enormous backlog of talented Democrats in the Golden State that she'd let one of her protégées take the spotlight and she'd retire in a similar fashion to her longtime co-senator Barbara Boxer, who left to make way for Kamala Harris just last year.

One of those ambitious pols took to lambasting Feinstein in an unusual press release yesterday.  Rep. Ro Khanna, who succeeded in besting longtime Rep. Mike Honda last year in a D vs. D general election, called her a "member of the establishment" and "out-of-touch," terms more commonly found on the right side of the aisle, but surely can come up on the left (anyone who doubts it was in a coma during the 2016 presidential primaries).  Khanna went on in a longer statement to state "how many times will voters have to demand change before we listen?"

I really want to find a different word other than pathetic for his behavior here, but I can't, so I'm just going with it.  Seriously-this is how a sitting congressman reacts to a senator, a member of his own party I'd like to point out, deciding to run for reelection?!?  This isn't a dictatorship (at least not yet-anyone check Trump's Twitter feed in the last ten minutes?), and Feinstein is running for elective office, not a Supreme Court justice waiting another term or a TV fan wondering how Modern Family got nominated for yet another Best Series Emmy.  The people of California have more than enough of a choice to tell Feinstein that they don't want her for another six years.  They could, I don't know, choose to vote for one of her opponents?  Perhaps a whiny congressman who is probably crying because a woman more popular and accomplished than him managed to win another term?  After all, he's proven before that incumbency is no match for when the people are fed up with an incumbent, and California's top-two primary system is perhaps friendlier to same-party challengers than virtually any other state in the country.

Listen, I get that incumbents have an advantage, and I don't hold anything against Khanna as a congressman (I endorsed him over Honda last year as I was uncomfortable with the ethics allegations levied against Honda at the time), but there's no way to read this other than sour grapes.  Khanna claims to have no interest in running for the office, but complaining about someone running for an election is pitiful.  If the public has an appetite to actually oust Feinstein, they can do that (we have seen incumbents longer-served than she ranging from Ralph Hall to Arlen Specter to Richard Lugar lose in a primary election because the public turned on them), and if they don't (which seems probable considering she'll likely win in a rout), it will be because people like Khanna didn't want to run for the seat.

Taking the "you took my toy" aspect of this out, one of the other attacks that seems to be stemming from Khanna's attacks bothers me more than just makes me want to roll my eyes, and that's his attacks on Feinstein's long public service.  Feinstein is arguably one of the most powerful women in the country, stemming in part from an ability to work with both sides of the Senate and in part due to her seniority in the Senate.  Guess who becomes Senate Judiciary Chair should she win (and the Democrats take back the majority next year)?  Guess who would be one of the most crucial votes on the Democratic side should a Trump impeachment hearing ever take place?  Feinstein has proven over her long career that she has the discipline and fortitude to do well in the Senate, and while she's not my favorite senator (on issues such as healthcare and foreign policy, she's more conservative than I'd probably like from a California senator), it's hard not to respect her.  And while 84 sounds old to most, her winning another term and continuing to serve wouldn't be unheard of.  Robert Byrd, Strom Thurmond and John Stennis were at or nearly the same age as Feinstein, and stood for a full term (that they served to completion), and Orrin Hatch who is only a few months younger than Feinstein seems increasingly likely to go for another six years in office.  Unlike some of her coworkers (like, say, Hatch or John McCain) she hasn't shown any real sense of slowing down or had a "senior moment" during a committee meeting.  She's still as sharp as ever in congressional hearings, quite engaged with issues of the day, and continually brings forth issues that are at the cutting edge of the political conversation (she's been a vocal advocate in the gun control debate, perhaps unrivaled by any of her colleagues save for Chris Murphy).

All of this is to say that on its merits, Feinstein probably has earned another term, and dismissing her just because of her age and incumbency seems like ageism in my book.  People like to talk about term limits, but really they should focus on getting more people to vote for their side and campaign finance reform, because that's how you actually stop someone like Feinstein (if you're in the Khanna camp and want to do so).   And guess who is a sitting member of Congress and could actually do something about campaign finance reform and campaigning if he wanted to (that'd be Ro Khanna)? Term limits prove an anchor on our freedom in a truly open democracy, something we saw plainly last year when we couldn't reelect Barack Obama to a third term and instead had to put up with Donald Trump for four years.  I'm not opposed to challenges of Democratic incumbents (for example I truly hope that Dan Lipinski loses in his race next year), but to dismiss Feinstein because she's old and has the gaul to run on her own record is patently absurd.  Ro Khanna needs to grow up and campaign just like Dianne Feinstein has done her whole career.  Don't claim to be the voice of the people-the voice of the people will be who votes in next year's primary and general elections, and if polls are to be believed, they'll be siding with the woman they've elected for 25 years to serve in the Senate.