Democrats are curious folk. Most Democrats, given an opening, will endlessly bewail the undemocratic nature of the Electoral College - an admittedly imperfect institution - because it sometimes allows a candidate receiving a minority of votes to become President, instead of the candidate receiving the most votes.
The most recent example, of course, is Donald Trump's Electoral College victory over Hillary Clinton, though for my money, the minority presidency which history will judge most decisive - in terms of furthering the 50-year downward spiral of American greatness - will be George W. Bush's judicially-decreed victory over Al Gore in 2000.
But in 2000 and 2016, the Electoral College winner was - at least - the choice of tens of millions of Americans. In 2016, for example, Mr. Trump garnered around 63 million votes to Ms. Clinton's 65.9 million.
The most recent example, of course, is Donald Trump's Electoral College victory over Hillary Clinton, though for my money, the minority presidency which history will judge most decisive - in terms of furthering the 50-year downward spiral of American greatness - will be George W. Bush's judicially-decreed victory over Al Gore in 2000.
But in 2000 and 2016, the Electoral College winner was - at least - the choice of tens of millions of Americans. In 2016, for example, Mr. Trump garnered around 63 million votes to Ms. Clinton's 65.9 million.
Compare that to the fact that - sometime in the next few months - Joe Biden will, all by himself, select his running-mate for Vice-President. A very consequential choice - made not by a majority, nor even a large minority, but by one old, white man.
As things look now, the object of this one-vote landslide will very likely become Vice-President of the United States on January 20, 2021 - from which point she would become Biden's constitutional successor. Should Biden survive four very challenging years in office, - and choose not to seek a second term at the age of 82 - his hand-picked Vice-President would be ideally positioned to claim the Democratic nomination against all comers.
Quite a bit of power to be wielded by a single citizen! Yet thus far, no significant voice has been raised in protest against the radically undemocratic tradition by which our vice-presidents - often, our future presidents - are elevated.
Now, some will argue that the privilege of a major-party presidential nominee to choose his running-mate is a time-honored tradition, and that is true. But it is a tradition less than a century old. By comparison, the Electoral College - a tradition rooted in words of the Constitution - is well over 200 years old, and few still regard it as sacrosanct.
Moreover, unlike the Electoral College, the tradition of allowing a party nominee to name his running-mate doesn't even approximate something like a popular vote. It is one man's decision. By comparison, the election of a pope - in the secrecy of the College of Cardinals - is a New England town meeting.
And this year, that decision will be enormously consequential. November's election will be - almost certainly - a referendum on President Donald Trump. If Joe Biden wins, it will not be because Americans see him as the dynamic leader we need in a time of cascading crises.
Biden, a likable, unremarkable, old buffer, had run for President twice before, when he was younger and more dynamic. His presidential prospects were resurrected when he was chosen - by the single vote of Barack Obama - to join the ticket in 2008.
And this year, the resurrection of his fading nomination prospects were the product of manufactured fears - the so-called electabiity issue; the non-stop advocacy of certain media outlets - not least MSNBC's Morning Joe; and Biden's adoption by the black Democratic political machine of one red state, South Carolina - a state which will certainly not give him its Electoral votes in the fall.
Biden is hardly the candidate to infuse Americans with hope in these uncertain times. He ran as the candidate least likely to frighten anyone undecided about voting against the President. He was sold as a candidate for the race everyone envisioned six months ago - where Trump would run on a booming economy, and the Democratic nominee would run on Trump's incompetence at everything else.
What's needed now is not a bland, safe candidate, but a visionary reformer on the lines of the two Roosevelts. But the least Democrats - and other Americans horrified at the prospect of four more years of Trump - should demand is that Biden's running-mate and prospective successor be the smartest, most dynamic, most competent, and most visionary person available.
If Biden chooses such a partner, he will greatly strengthen his case for being a welcome transitional figure as America moves beyond The Virus and into a new, more just, equal, and progressive era.
But shame on the Democratic Party - and all of us, really - for allowing one man to make such a monumental choice all on his own.
As things look now, the object of this one-vote landslide will very likely become Vice-President of the United States on January 20, 2021 - from which point she would become Biden's constitutional successor. Should Biden survive four very challenging years in office, - and choose not to seek a second term at the age of 82 - his hand-picked Vice-President would be ideally positioned to claim the Democratic nomination against all comers.
Quite a bit of power to be wielded by a single citizen! Yet thus far, no significant voice has been raised in protest against the radically undemocratic tradition by which our vice-presidents - often, our future presidents - are elevated.
Now, some will argue that the privilege of a major-party presidential nominee to choose his running-mate is a time-honored tradition, and that is true. But it is a tradition less than a century old. By comparison, the Electoral College - a tradition rooted in words of the Constitution - is well over 200 years old, and few still regard it as sacrosanct.
Moreover, unlike the Electoral College, the tradition of allowing a party nominee to name his running-mate doesn't even approximate something like a popular vote. It is one man's decision. By comparison, the election of a pope - in the secrecy of the College of Cardinals - is a New England town meeting.
And this year, that decision will be enormously consequential. November's election will be - almost certainly - a referendum on President Donald Trump. If Joe Biden wins, it will not be because Americans see him as the dynamic leader we need in a time of cascading crises.
Biden, a likable, unremarkable, old buffer, had run for President twice before, when he was younger and more dynamic. His presidential prospects were resurrected when he was chosen - by the single vote of Barack Obama - to join the ticket in 2008.
And this year, the resurrection of his fading nomination prospects were the product of manufactured fears - the so-called electabiity issue; the non-stop advocacy of certain media outlets - not least MSNBC's Morning Joe; and Biden's adoption by the black Democratic political machine of one red state, South Carolina - a state which will certainly not give him its Electoral votes in the fall.
Biden is hardly the candidate to infuse Americans with hope in these uncertain times. He ran as the candidate least likely to frighten anyone undecided about voting against the President. He was sold as a candidate for the race everyone envisioned six months ago - where Trump would run on a booming economy, and the Democratic nominee would run on Trump's incompetence at everything else.
What's needed now is not a bland, safe candidate, but a visionary reformer on the lines of the two Roosevelts. But the least Democrats - and other Americans horrified at the prospect of four more years of Trump - should demand is that Biden's running-mate and prospective successor be the smartest, most dynamic, most competent, and most visionary person available.
If Biden chooses such a partner, he will greatly strengthen his case for being a welcome transitional figure as America moves beyond The Virus and into a new, more just, equal, and progressive era.
But shame on the Democratic Party - and all of us, really - for allowing one man to make such a monumental choice all on his own.
No comments:
Post a Comment