Another brilliant political solution
In December 2000, I proposed what I thought was a perfect way to settle the election mess. George Bush would become President and Joe Lieberman would become Vice President. Through some other machinations, it would be ensured that there would be a 50-50 split in the Senate, with Lieberman able to cast a tie-breaking vote if necessary. I thought that a power sharing compromise like this was the only way to fairly represent the views of what was obviously a divided electorate.
As far as I know, I was the only person alive to think this was a good idea. So keep that in mind as you contemplate my next suggestion.
We have now reached the point in the Democratic nomination process where no outcome is going to be perceived as fair by the losing candidate. It doesn’t matter who wins Pennsylvania, whether or not there are revotes in Michigan and Florida, or whether the superdelegates base their votes on their own personal feelings, the results from their home districts, or the results from the states as a whole. No matter what happens, millions of people are going to believe that this nomination was “stolen.”
There are only two people who can prevent a catastrophe for the Democratic Party: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. One of these people is going to have to step up and make a personal sacrifice for the good of the party and the country. They are both smart people, good politicians, and committed civil servants. They need to get in a room together and work this out. If they can’t settle an “argument” like this among “friends,” how are they going to do when it comes to negotiating difficult compromises with Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, etc.?
I don’t really care what kind of deal they make. If I were Barack, maybe I’d accept the Vice Presidency, three cabinet picks, a second-round Supreme Court Justice, and a promised endorsement in 2016. If I were Hillary, maybe I’d be willing to take Senate Majority Leader (we’d have to get Harry Reid to agree to step out of the way), plus support for mandatory health care coverage, renegotiation of NAFTA, an ambassadorship for Bill of my choosing (Australia, perhaps), and a policy to be named later. Anyone who thinks its unseemly for a politician to give something in order to get something doesn’t have a clue as to what politics is all about.
Letting the process play out with the understanding that the loser will endorse the winner is insufficient. Unless we can get both of those people to look us in the eye and say they are genuinely pleased with and excited about the result, the bitterness is going to last for a long time and whoever is President — assuming it’s a Democrat — is going to have a much tougher time governing.
Comments
Comment from david
Time June 5, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Rob, there’s a difference between cronyism and political compromise. Cronyism implies that the officeseeker is unqualified for the job and that the officegiver is benefitting personally from the appointment. The solution I suggested above (which is now moot, of course) was simply a nonconfrontational way to allow two highly qualified people to share power.
Comment from Rob
Time June 10, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Cronyism-special treatment and preference given to friends or colleagues, especially in politics
Obviously there are times were such an act is in fact ethical. Bipartisan politics often involve give and take when things need to be accomplished.
I would argue that in picking the President of the United States(or in this case the nominee) that the race be as democratically “pure” as possible. Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton both ran solid campaigns, but the people voted for one or the other. They did not vote for Mr. Obama, with Mrs. Clinton picking a Supreme Court justice, and other judicial appointments. The problem here is that is an inherently corruptive force. While you put this forward with the best intentions, there is a serious danger in blurring the lines of what is ethical and what is not ethical in compromise and party politics. I suppose if you made the deal explicitly clear to the voters well before November and gave full disclosure of what would happen, then it would be…..tolerable.
Even worse, nothing has been decided until the Democratic Convention. Until the delegates cast their votes, Mr. Obama is not the official nominee. Mrs. Clinton may be up to her tired old scheming so your points may not be as moot as many would like them to be.
Comment from Rob
Time June 4, 2008 at 8:59 pm
You are proposing a form of cronyism, which is not a good political philosophy in any situation. Neither candidate should be “bought” with promises of power, judicial picks, cabinet picks or endorsements. It is a corrupt practice to “buy and sell” offices. Democrats have done this to themselves by not abiding by the rules they laid down for themselves for process of awarding delegates.
The proposals of Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama, and Mr. McCain are not in the best interest of America. Thus I am pleased with the current turmoil in both parties and applaud the fact that they have serious issues.