THE LEFT-WING caucus calling for Senator Dianne Feinstein to relinquish her Senate seat grew last week. Over the past month, Democratic representatives Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, Ro Khanna of California, and Dean Phillips of Minnesota had urged the 89-year-old Feinstein, who has been away from the Senate since contracting a painful case of shingles in March, to step down. On Tuesday, they were joined by two additional "Squad" members, Representative Ayanna Pressley of Boston and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York.
"I wish [Feinstein] well in her health and her recovery," Pressley told GBH Radio. "But I do think that if it's impacting her ability to do the job, I would support a resignation."
Ocasio-Cortez didn't bother to feign concern for Feinstein's well-being. "[Her] refusal to either retire or show up is causing great harm to the judiciary," the congresswoman snapped on social media. "That failure means now in this precious window Dems can only pass GOP-approved nominees."
On Friday, The New York Times piled on. "If [Feinstein] cannot fulfill her obligations to the Senate and to her constituents, she should resign and turn over her responsibilities to an appointed successor," the paper editorialized.
 In 1971 (left) Dianne Feinstein became the first female president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. More than a half-century later, she is the oldest sitting US senator. |
What motivates the Feinstein-should-resign chorus is not the welfare of the Senate's oldest member; it's that her absence from the Senate Judiciary Committee is preventing Democrats from confirming a handful of President Biden's judicial nominees. If the Senate's Democratic majority were larger, Feinstein's absence wouldn't impede her party's agenda and no one would be clamoring for her to step down. But with the Senate so closely divided, things are different. In her absence, the Judiciary Committee has an equal number of Democrats and Republicans, meaning that Biden's nominees cannot move forward without at least some GOP support.
To be clear, judicial confirmations haven't screeched to a halt. Since Feinstein has been away, 21 judges have been confirmed by the Senate and eight nominees have advanced from the Judiciary Committee to the full Senate. It is only a few controversial nominations that have been stalled because Democrats can't muster the votes to advance them.
That said, Feinstein should step down. No one of her advanced years and obvious physical and mental decline should be holding a high government position.
The New Yorker reported in 2020 that the California senator was "seriously struggling" with memory failure. The article described a recent hearing during which Feinstein had repeated a detailed question to a witness word for word, apparently unaware that she had just asked it. More than a year ago, The San Francisco Chronicle described instances in which Feinstein, meeting with a lawmaker she had worked with for many years, had to repeatedly be reintroduced to the person.
"Four US senators, including three Democrats, as well as three former Feinstein staffers and [a member of California's congressional delegation] told The Chronicle in recent interviews that her memory is rapidly deteriorating," the paper noted. "They said it appears she can no longer fulfill her job duties without her staff doing much of the work required."
Feinstein isn't the only superannuated member of Congress. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa is 89 and four representatives — Grace Napolitano of California, Eleanor Holmes Norton of the District of Columbia, Harold Rogers of Kentucky, and Bill Pascrell of New Jersey — are 85 or older. To be sure, some people are blessed to reach extreme old age without suffering significant intellectual or bodily impairment. But that isn't the norm. And it isn't fair to the public when lawmakers — or, for that matter, presidents and judges — insist on clinging to office when they are no longer up to the job.
But cling they do, protected by a Washington culture that privileges political insiders' egos above the nation's best interests.
In a very early column for the Globe, I wrote about an impressive young Republican candidate who was waging a quixotic challenge to J. Joseph Moakley, the long-serving congressman from Boston. I mentioned in passing that Moakley, who was first elected to office in his 20s, was nearing 70 "and his health is poor." The day after the column appeared, Moakley showed up at the Globe offices in Dorchester and proceeded to berate me for those words. My praise for his campaign opponent didn't concern him but he was outraged by my pointing out that his physical condition was worsening.
The more Moakley declined, the more he denied it. When he was spotted a few months later hobbling with a cane, he insisted he had no problems save for a touch of arthritis. "Christ, they've got me in O'Brien's already," he fumed, referring to a South Boston funeral home. "How many times can I tell people . . . my overall health is fine?" Three months after that, gaunt and in pain, Moakley was in a Virginia hospital having his liver removed.
Eventually it seemed to dawn on Moakley that there might be more to life than nonstop politics. He called a press conference to announce that, after 24 years in Washington, he was retiring. But he couldn't do it. In a weird, sad performance, rambling incoherently on live television, Moakley declared that he would run again for Congress after all. "Outside of my wife," he said, "it's my only love."
The annals of government are filled with examples of men and women who grew so addicted to power and its perquisites that they couldn't bear the thought of voluntarily relinquishing them. Senator Ted Kennedy refused to resign his seat in Congress even after he had been diagnosed with brain cancer and it was clear he would not be returning to Capitol Hill. The same fatal disease struck Senator John McCain, who likewise clung to his position, even though it deprived his state of a functioning senator for more than eight months.
In July 2005, former chief justice William Rehnquist, saying he wanted "to put to rest the speculation and unfounded rumors of my imminent retirement," announced that he had no intention of resigning from the Supreme Court. Though illness was destroying him and he had to miss dozens of oral arguments, he remained on the court until his death. So did Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who ignored pleas to retire, even as age and repeated bouts of cancer took their toll.
It's a very old story, this clinging to political office by men and women who are too old and/or sick to do their work. Why do Americans tolerate it? The government of the United States is too important to be left to politicians whose memories are failing and whose bodies are breaking down. When lawmakers, justices, and presidents cannot keep up with the job they were elected or appointed to, they ought to have the integrity to bow out. Their job, after all, doesn't belong to them. It belongs to us.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The gas stove gaslighters
Remember when Democratic politicians and their allies were snickering in derision as conservatives raised alarms about a potential government ban on gas stoves?
"Nobody is taking away your gas stove," a scornful Senator Chuck Schumer tweeted in February. "Shameless and desperate MAGA Republicans are showing us they will cook up any distraction to divert from real issues."
Media progressives backed him up.
"The least convincing fake Republican outrage ever," Amanda Marcotte snorted in Salon. "Republicans Are Now Flipping Out Over Gas Stoves," smirked Mother Jones. "Republicans have found their new dumb culture war," James Downie chimed in at MSNBC. "Hot Air Over Gas Stoves," intoned Factcheck.org.
But what do you know? The Republicans were right.
"New York is the first state in the country to ban natural gas and other fossil fuels in most new buildings," CNN reported last week.
Facing mounting pressure from environmental advocates and climate-minded voters, Gov. Kathy Hochul and Democratic lawmakers, who control the New York Senate and Assembly, approved the new $229 billion state budget containing the provision late Tuesday night.
The law bans gas-powered stoves, furnaces, and propane heating and effectively encourages the use of climate-friendly appliances such as heat pumps and induction stoves in most new residential buildings across the state. It requires all-electric heating and cooking in new buildings shorter than seven stories by 2026 and for taller buildings by 2029.
This topic emerged as a national issue back in December. Twenty Democratic members of Congress — including Senators Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey of Massachusetts — signed a letter urging the Consumer Product Safety Commission to "take action" to address the "risks" posed by gas stoves, and pointedly emphasized that "the CPSC has broad authority under the Consumer Product Safety Act to regulate consumer products."
A few weeks later, Bloomberg interviewed Richard Trumka Jr., one of the agency's commissioners. "Any option is on the table," he said when asked about gas stoves. "Products that can't be made safe can be banned." Bloomberg reported the interview under the headline "US Safety Agency to Consider Ban on Gas Stoves Amid Health Fears." That triggered the conservative warnings about a potential threat to the popular kitchen appliance, which are used in 37 percent of US homes and 76 percent of restaurants.
Political rhetoric being what it is, some of the GOP comments were over the top ("God. Guns. Gas stoves," tweeted Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio.) But much of the commentary on the right pointed out that a war on natural gas was in fact well underway. Writing in Reason, Liz Wolfe noted that gas hookups were already banned or sharply discouraged in New York City and dozens of California municipalities. The misnamed Inflation Reduction Act, which President Biden signed into law last year, includes financial incentives for consumers to replace gas stoves and cooktops with electric models.
And now the nation's fourth largest state by population is banning the use of natural gas in new construction — "a move that could help reshape how Americans heat and cook in their homes in the coming decades," in The Washington Post's words.
Republicans claimed that progressives were gearing up to go after gas stoves, and progressives tried to tell them they were crazy. It's pretty clear who was gaslighting whom.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
What non-mothers miss out on
In a pre-Mother's Day essay for her blog, The Femsplainers, Danielle Crittenden reflects on the expanding number of Millennial and Gen Z women who have decided against becoming mothers. The reasons they give are many — "I don't make enough money," "I don't want to get married," "I don't want to raise a child in this messed-up world," "I don't want to have a baby that will add to CO2 emissions," and so on.
Doubtless some of those concerns are sincere. But "let's be honest," Crittenden says: What's really motivating many of the young people who have ruled out parenthood is a desire for freedom from the burdens of raising kids.
"I get it," she writes. "Parenthood from the outside looking in seems terrible."
You see a squalling baby on a plane and think, "No way." Or someone's screeching toddler ruins the atmosphere of the restaurant on a first date. You wake up at noon on the weekends and flip open your devices to binge-watch TikTok or play games undisturbed. You liken the thought of an interrupted night's sleep to being subjected to North Vietnamese sleep deprivation tactics. You love brunch.
But there is nothing new about such thinking, as Crittenden remarks. It has always been the case that "if you make a list of pros and cons for having children, the cons win." Until, that is, you actually have children and begin to experience all the happiness, satisfaction, and gratitude that comes with the travails of parenthood.
Crittenden writes of Baby Boom women like herself who were "startled after they bore their first child and found themselves suddenly reluctant to return to the office." I observed that very phenomenon under my own roof. When my wife was pregnant with our older son, she had every intention of taking the allotted 12 weeks of maternity leave and then returning to work. But before the baby was three weeks old, she realized that she couldn't bear the thought of going back to an office while someone else cared for our child.
"Until it's your own child," Crittenden says,
you can't possibly imagine the compensating joys and soul-expanding experience of having children. The demands of infancy are short-lived (and even then, babies are still pretty adorable most of the time). One day soon, there is this miniature person discovering the world for the first time — and you are looked up to as the Odyssean hero leading this remarkable journey!
The child entrusts its small hand into yours and pulls you into a universe you'd long forgotten about: one with games, talking animals, pretend lands, and the sweet, utter literalness of a child's view. To the child, you are indispensable, all-wise, and loved so fiercely and uncritically you sometimes feel you are unworthy of such adoration. But you discover a new type of love yourself, one you never knew you were capable of. It's larger, more enriching, and more encompassing than anything you have ever known. For the first time in your life you are living for something bigger and more rewarding than yourself.
Crittenden is a journalist and the author of four books, she co-hosted a popular podcast, and she was the CEO of a luxury lifestyle website. With her husband, a prominent commentator and former White House speechwriter, she moves in elite circles. But motherhood surpassed all of it.
"I can say now without a doubt that having children and raising a family was the greatest experience of my life," Crittenden writes. "For all the effort that went into being a mother, my children gave back exponentially more. I can't imagine the person I would have become without them."
It's a free country. Women (and men) who want no part of parenthood are wholly at liberty to avoid it. In most of American society today, there is no stigma to living a childfree-by-choice lifestyle. I know that many who embrace that lifestyle couldn't be happier, and I sincerely wish them joy of their freedom. Perhaps it's just as well that they never realize what they've missed.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
What I Wrote Then
25 years ago on the op-ed page
From "Overpopulation?," May 5, 1998:
There are about 5.9 billion people today, nearly quadruple the number at the start of the 20th century. Anyone old enough to remember FDR's fireside chats has lived through the most phenomenal increase in population since human history began. If the fearmongers are right, the history of this century should have been one of steadily worsening famine, disease, and penury. Every measure of human well-being — from infant mortality to per-capita wealth to malnutrition — should have declined. We should be crawling into the new millennium on our knees, hungry, weak, sick, destitute, choking in waste and misery.
But nearly everything is better. Infant mortality is way down. Life expectancy is way up. Per capita wealth has skyrocketed. Food supplies have soared. Energy is more abundant. Pollution has plummeted. Dread diseases have been conquered.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The Last Line
"With his death, Abraham Lincoln had come to seem the embodiment of his own words — 'With malice toward none; with charity for all' — voiced in his second inaugural to lay out the visionary pathway to a reconstructed union. The deathless name he sought from the start had grown far beyond Sangamon County and Illinois, reached across the truly United States, until his legacy, as Stanton had surmised at the moment of his death, belonged not only to America but to the ages — to be revered and sung throughout all time." — Doris Kearns Goodwin, Team of Rivals (2005)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe).
-- ## --
Follow Jeff Jacoby on Twitter.
Discuss Jeff Jacoby's columns on Facebook.
Want to read more Jeff Jacoby? Sign up for "Arguable," his free weekly email newsletter.