Should Dianne Feinstein just resign?
An uncomfortable question.
On Tuesday, to the surprise of no one, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein announced that she would not seek a 6th full term in 2024.
She did so in a statement issued through her office; “I am announcing today I will not run for reelection in 2024 but intend to accomplish as much for California as I can through the end of next year when my term ends,” she said.
In subsequent interviews with reporters, Feinstein appeared to be confused about the announcement — or at least it’s timing.
“Oh, no, I'm not announcing anything. I will one day,” she told Raw Story an hour after the announcement went out.
And then there was this exchange with a staffer.
Not great.
The best case explanation for Feinstein is that she and her staff simply got their lines crossed about when, exactly, the retirement statement would go out.
The worst case is that the California Democrat was either unaware of or had forgotten that the announcement was being made.
Some context is helpful here.
Back in April 2022, the San Francisco Chronicle published a lengthy article headlined “Colleagues worry Dianne Feinstein is now mentally unfit to serve, citing recent interactions” that included these lines:
“Four U.S. senators, including three Democrats, as well as three former Feinstein staffers and the California Democratic member of Congress told The Chronicle in recent interviews that her memory is rapidly deteriorating. They said it appears she can no longer fulfill her job duties without her staff doing much of the work required to represent the nearly 40 million people of California.”
They said that the memory lapses do not appear to be constant and that some days she is nearly as sharp as she used to be. During the March confirmation hearing for soon-to-be-Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Feinstein appeared composed as she read pertinent questions, though she repeated comments to Jackson about the judge’s composure in the face of tough questioning. But some close to her said that on her most difficult days, she does not seem to fully recognize even longtime colleagues.
The following month, the New York Times published a similar piece — “As Feinstein Declines, Democrats Struggle to Manage an Open Secret” — that offered further details on the Senator’s struggles.
These paragraphs, taken from that piece, are brutal:
At 88, Ms. Feinstein sometimes struggles to recall the names of colleagues, frequently has little recollection of meetings or telephone conversations, and at times walks around in a state of befuddlement — including about why she is increasingly dogged by questions about whether she is fit to serve in the Senate representing the 40 million residents of California, according to half a dozen lawmakers and aides who spoke about the situation on the condition of anonymity.
Ms. Feinstein is often engaged during meetings and phone conversations, usually coming prepared and taking notes. But hours later, she will often have forgotten those interactions, said the people familiar with the situation, who insisted that they not be named because they did not want to be quoted disparaging a figure they respect.
Some of them said they did not expect her to serve out her term ending in 2024 under the circumstances, even though she refuses to engage in conversations about stepping down.
The coverage in the wake of Feinstein’s announcement on Tuesday was largely laudatory — noting the historic and groundbreaking nature of her time in elected office. (She was the first female mayor of San Francisco and the first woman to chair the Senate Judiciary committee, for example.)
Mark Z. Barabak, the best political commentator in the state of California, wrote movingly about Feinstein.
“It would be tragic and wrong, however, to remember Feinstein as some kind of relic, as if we only remembered Willie Mays — another San Francisco icon — for the final years he spent stumbling around the outfield,” wrote Barabak, adding: “She is not only the state’s longest-serving U.S. senator, she is one of the most meaningful and accomplished lawmakers Californians ever put in office.”
None of which I take any issue with. Feinstein is an absolute titan in California politics. But, the coverage of her retirement seems to overlook a key question: Is she mentally fit to represent the nation’s most populous state for the next year and a half?
Look, I get that this is an uncomfortable conversation. Age is undefeated. This is a fact with which all of us have to grapple. There will, inevitably come a time when we move slower, think slower.
For most of us, though, how to deal with that reality is an individual decision, with few ramifications to the broader public. That’s not the case with Feinstein. She is one of only two Senators from a state with 39 million people. How she chooses to manage her decline matters well beyond just her.
Her retirement announcement doesn’t change anything that has been reported about her struggles. If Senators were telling the Chronicle almost a year ago that they were worried about her capacity to do the job, it’s VERY unlikely those doubts have suddenly disappeared.
Yes, it’s worth noting here that she would be far from the first Senator who, in their 80s and beyond, relied heavily on staff to manage the affairs of the office. (South Carolina Sen. Strom Thurmond’s chief of staff was widely regarded as the 101st Senator in the last years the incumbent spent in the chamber.)
But simply because that’s happened before doesn’t make it the right decision.
If Feinstein did resign before the end of her term, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom would slot in her replacement — meaning there would be no change to the partisan makeup in the Senate.
The pressure for Feinstein to go appears to have abated significantly with her retirement announcement. But, it’s worth asking the question whether resignation rather than retirement is the responsible course of action here.
Even with her marbles rattling around in disorder, she’s far less dangerous to our country than Sens. Hawley, Cruz and Scott. Let her be.
She should resign if she wants to give a candidate in the upcoming election a boost (assuming she works out a deal with the Gov to appoint the person she/her team want).