Change You Can Believe In

 This is an interesting Twitter thread about the generational divide between Russian and Ukrainian leadership. The average age of Russian leadership is 64, Ukrainian leadership is 44. That's the literal definition of a generational divide. 

There has been a ton of pixels spilt over why Russia has so badly underperformed militarily in Ukraine, while Ukraine has defied early expectations. A lot, obviously, has to do with relative morale and the nature of offensive vs defensive warfare. However, there is a deeper problem in Russian military and political culture: ossified doctrine and leadership. A lot has been made about the inferiority of Russia's non-commissioned officers. The sergeants that make up the backbone of an effective fighting force must be on the younger side, say in their 30s. Russia's military does not create good NCOs and allow them autonomy, because the regime is quintessentially authoritarian and autonomy is not granted "underlings." In a combat environment, adaptability and flexibility are essential. Russia doesn't have that, which is why generals have to be near the frontline and keep getting killed.

The broader implication of the tweet, though, is that this is a problem we saw in the late Soviet period of a decaying gerontocracy. Putin is old and apparently dying of cancer or Parkinsons. He has surrounded himself with a bunch of other older men with ties to the late Soviet period, like himself - the siloviki. His critics, like Navalny, are mostly younger. Since the war broke out, we've seen young, urban, cosmopolitan Russians flee the country in a "brain drain" that has negative implications for regime change in Russia, but also is a real problem in a country with an ongoing demographic crisis of declining birth rates, a declining population and high mortality rates among its male population. (This is one reason why Russia is literally kidnapping Ukrainian children.)

Authoritarianism has a certain appeal for people who feel unmoored during times of great change and turmoil. This was central to Trump's appeal. The entire point of Fox News is to keep GOP voters agitated about the changing world so that they will cede democracy to a Trump/Orban/Bolsanaro type strongman. In the end, though, authoritarianism usually fails as a form of government because it becomes unadaptive. It can't roll with the punches. 

One worry I have at this moment is America's current state of gerontocracy. Biden turns 80 this year; Pelosi is 82, Trump is 75, McConnell is 80, Schumer is 71, Hoyer is 82, Clyburn is 81, Leahy is 81, Durbin is 77, Patty Murray is 71, Stabenow is 72.

The GOP actually has a relatively younger leadership group in McCarthy, Thune, Scalise and Stefanik. I mean, they're awful, but they aren't ancient.

As we've seen with Madison Cawthorn and to a lesser degree Ilhan Omar, there's a certain impetuousness and lack of perspective in younger people. You see it on Twitter all the time. People without appropriate historical perspective and memory can get lost in the moment, because the moment is all they know. There is a place for "wise old heads."

However, Democrats need to begin now to start adding youth to their political leadership. Hakeem Jeffries, Cory Booker, Chris Murphy, Brian Schatz even Amy Klobuchar at 61 need to be elevated to positions of real leadership.

If not, the Democrats will rely on ancient leaders at the mercy of their 27 year old staffers, and that's the worst of both worlds.