Let's Do This Today

Okay, Friends, here's the situation:

1.  We're in a national crisis, which Donald Trump is turning into a 24/7 campaign infomercial for his re-election campaign, while the Democrats - aside from performing well as legislators - are getting no media attention at all.

2.  The Democratic contest for President is over.  We might wish it were otherwise, but Joe Biden is going to be the Democratic nominee in 2020.  The time for hand-wringing is past.

     2a.  Because of his age, if he is elected, Joe Biden will be a one-term
            President, and his Vice-President will be the odds-on favorite to
            succeed him in 2024.  And the choice of that person is entirely up
            to Joe Biden.

3.  The coronavirus pandemic will likely peak before a new Administration can take office.   For the moment, we have the least effective imaginable national leadership, but we'll just have to do the best we can through citizen and community efforts, and the leadership of state and local officials, to survive this thing.

4.  The economic impact of the pandemic will be devastating, and will require the wisest possible leadership to restore prosperity here, and around the world.

5.   The pandemic, and its economic consequences, have created two possible courses of action for America - either a corporate-led effort to "rebuild" the economy, so that the 1% and the .1% are even better off, and more dominant, in future OR a progressive-led effort to restructure our society so that we come out of this crisis with an economy which is much fairer, provides greater opportunity to more Americans, and is far more environmentally sustainable.

Given these apparent realities, there seems to me no question that Joe Biden must choose Elizabeth Warren as his running-mate.  Senator Warren is, because of her deep understanding of health-care issues, the most competent person in national politics to assist Biden in managing whatever continuing health crisis exists when he takes office.

Warren is also, by any measure, the smartest, most dynamic, most creative, and most far-sighted advocate of the sort of big structural change our society will need as the coronavirus crisis recedes.  If Biden is to be President, Warren must be his designated successor.

And the time to act is now.

Today, I went to the official Biden campaign website and signed up as a supporter.  Clicking through the website, the second page asks the question, "Looking ahead to the 2020 election, what are you most concerned about?"   I skipped past all the options provided, clicked on "Other", and wrote "Electing Elizabeth Warren Vice-President". 

Then I clicked through to the end and contributed $12 dollars - or, if your budget is tight (as most are) $1.20 or even $0.12- as a signal that, in your opinion, the Number One thing for Biden to do is to name Elizabeth Warren as his Number Two.

And that's what I'm suggesting that every other progressively-minded American do.  Today.  Send a signal to Joe Biden that he needs Elizabeth Warren at his side.  And do that at a time when the Democrats desperately need a headline-grabbing story to compete with the President for attention.

I'm guessing, if 100,000 of us do the same thing - sign up with Joe, indicate that Warren for VP is our number one priority, and contribute exactly $12 - that gesture will have the desired impact.

But there's only one way to find out.

At Home with Kids? Learn a Language Together!

With schools closing around the country, millions of parents are suddenly confronted by the problem of what to do about their children's educations.  The prospect of having the kids at home for weeks - perhaps, months - presents a daunting challenge.

It could also present a rare opportunity.

As an old history teacher who has delved pretty deeply into educational policy, here's my suggestion:  Learn a language together.

The advantages of language learning are enormous.  Most Americans - including college graduates and professionals - are effectively monolingual.  We might know enough to order food or wine in a French or Mexican restaurant.  Or find a restroom or get back to our hotel when travelling abroad.   If our jobs require it, we might be able to speak enough of one or two languages to communicate with co-workers on work-related issues.

But few of us are truly fluent, and - in a once and future global society - that's a handicap.  It's also a national embarrassment.

When I was teaching high school, in my early 30s, I used to take groups of students on three-week tours of Europe in the summer.  One summer, I let the kids fly home with a colleague so I could stay for a few weeks on my own, bumming around on a Eurailpass.  One day, I found myself on a train, in conversation with a pretty woman sitting across from me.  She was Swiss, a secretary, no more than 20.  I complimented her on her English - which was, in fact, very good.

She smilingly demurred.  Her English was not that good, she said.  Her German, French, and Italian were much better.

This young woman was obviously intelligent, but she wasn't a college graduate.  But she spoke at least four languages fluently.  I was at least twelve years older, and had a BA and a law degree from one of America's best public universities - and I spoke my native English and slightly rusty German.

I've never forgotten that moment.  It was humbling.  We are citizens of a super-power, at a time when the world has become one community - and most of us can't speak to anyone who hasn't taken the trouble to learn English.

And neither can our kids.

Now, I could go on and on about why this must change.  But we all know this.  The problem is, our educational system is not set up to make that change.

Our schools operate on the basis of short classroom sessions - 50 minutes daily, or 90 minutes on alternate days - with 20 to 30 students in a class.  Language learning works best when it's immersive.  You can't learn a language very well when it's just a box on a schedule.  You have to live with it.

For language learning, the class period or block is basically a waste of time.  Likewise the large, standard class of 20 or more students.

And, of course, one learns languages most easily as a young child - not a teenager.  The older you get, the harder it gets.

Which is what makes the present moment so ideal for language learning.

If you're at home with a child, or several children, learning a new language is something you can all do together.  Unlike other subjects, the younger children won't struggle to keep up with their elders - they'll probably excel.  If anything, you'll be the slow learner.

The other great thing about language learning is that there are so many ways to go about it - most of which don't feel much like work.  There are lots of on-line programs for basic instruction.  I personally enjoy Duolingo, a free app with short lessons and lots of little incentives, like a video game.  My favorite thing about Duolingo is that it doesn't let you finish a lesson until you get everything right.  There's no shame.  You just try again until you get it - and then you're congratulated.

There are a lot of low-tech ways to learn a language, too.  When I learned my German, it was in an eight-week immersive summer course.  I was 32, and I achieved decent fluency, with a very good accent, in eight weeks.  One of our first-day exercises was to label everything in our residence house - doors, windows, tables, refrigerators, floors, etc. - with hand-lettered index cards.  Within days, these nouns were ours.

We also did a lot of non-work-like things.  We watched movies in German.  We sang songs.  We talked to each other - clumsily, at first, looking up words in our dictionaries as we went.  (Our program's rule was, no English, from Day One - so we started with baby talk, but we quickly got better.)

During this enforced time out-of-school, a lot of parents will try to keep their kids on track with the curriculum of the school they were attending.  There's a case to be made for that, and if your kids' school is offering meaningful distance learning, you might try it.

The problem is, not every family will do that - or do it in the same way.  When the kids eventually get back together, there will be marked discrepancies - and a lot of the curriculum will have to be re-taught, to get everyone back on the same page.  Those kids who've worked hardest to "keep up" will likely have to suffer through it all a second time.

Rather than subject your children to sitting through a repeat of what they've labored to learn while school was out, why not take the opportunity to learn something together - in a way the schools can't possibly match?  It's a lot more fun - and it would bring the family together in a new and exciting way.

A little exploration will do for finding the necessary resources.  They are almost infinite.

Looked at optimistically, this time is yours.  Why not seize it?

Burr Should Resign, Now.

Throughout the endless years of the Trump Presidency, I've had a grudging respect for Senator Richard Burr (R-NC).  While Republican Congressmen such as Devin Nunes and Mark Meadows were, shall we say, obfuscating candidate Trump's involvement with Russia, Chairman Burr worked hand-in-hand with the Ranking Member, Senator Mark Warner (D-VA), to lead the Senate Intelligence Committee through what looked like an honest, bipartisan investigation of the same subject.

Here, I thought, is an okay guy.  A Republican, admittedly, but a North Carolinian.  As a native and long-time Virginian, I've always tended to give residents of the Tar Heel state the benefit of the doubt.  (Unless, of course, they played basketball for Duke.)

To be sure, my estimation of Senator Burr was clouded by his voting record.  Mitch McConnell had a reliable Yea or Nay in the senior Senator from North Carolina.  But still, he seemed willing to investigate the President's Russia ties - and if you start investigating anything to do with Donald Trump, ain't no way it's going to come up smelling like roses.

So I was staggered to learn, from this morning's NPR newscast, that Mr. Burr had given a very realistic appraisal of the risks of a coronavirus pandemic to a handful of well-heeled contributors - mainly corporate types - who shared lunch with him on February 27.  A date when the Senator was saying absolutely nothing similar to the millions of ordinary North Carolinians who weren't members of the "North Carolina State Society" - but who were his constituents.

My immediate thought was, "He should resign."

Then I looked to see who happened to be the Governor of North Carolina - the person who would appoint someone to replace Mr. Burr, if he resigned.   Turns out it's Roy Cooper, a Democrat.  I quickly amended my thought to, "He must resign."

Now, to be sure, under North Carolina law, Governor Cooper is obligated to appoint someone who is of the same party as the vacating Senator.  So he couldn't appoint a Democrat.

But surely, there is, somewhere in the vastness of North Carolina - a state noted for independent-minded men and women - a Republican who holds as low an opinion of Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell as do other right-thinking Americans.

A Republican who would be willing to fill out the span between now November 3 denying Mitch McConnell - and the Stable Genius in the White House - a reliable vote for things like:  giveaways to corporations under the guise of doing something about the pandemic; wall-building as a way of keeping out viruses that are already here; and, most of all, nominees to the Federal judiciary.

All of which led me to this inevitable conclusion:  The Democratic presidential primary is over.  It's gonna be Joe Biden, and whomever he chooses for Vice-President - unless the Democratic Party insists he include someone else in the decision-making process.

But the Senate is going to spend the next seven-and-a-half months dealing with one of the biggest natural disasters in American history - and we need to be sure it does so in the interests of the citizens, not just the big donor class.

So, to me, the answer was obvious.  We should take our frustrated political energies and start demanding that Senator Burr resign.

Except, I knew that wouldn't happen.  Leaking information to your rich buddies, while concealing it from the rest of your constituents, is contemptible, dishonorable, and just plain wrong.  But in the Age of Trump, it also seems pretty routine - and it's not technically illegal

So I wasn't sure about writing this piece, until this evening, when I went on that Search Engine We All Hate to check my facts about Mr. Burr of North Carolina, and read that he and his wife had also dumped between a half-million and one-and-a-half-million dollars worth of stock two weeks before he told his rich buddies the frightening truth about the coronavirus.

Which certainly stinks.  And might just be illegal.

This new revelation made up my mind for me.  Burr must go.  We must all demand it.  We'll leave it to Governor Cooper to play Diogenes, looking for an honest Republican in North Carolina to fill Burr's seat until a special election can be held.

No harm if he takes a while making his choice.  No harm at all.

But Burr must resign.  Now.

So write a letter, and lick a stamp.  On second though, use a sponge.

You don't know where that stamp has been.

Who Chooses the Veep?

The unexamined life is not worth living.  
                                              - Socrates

Sometimes, the most consequential things in life go unexamined.  In the last century of American political history, one matter of high consequence is the unchallenged assumption that the newly-minted presidential nominee of a major party has the unfettered privilege of choosing his - so far, it has always been his - running-mate.

When you think about it, this makes no sense.  While some modern Presidents have chosen to make use of their Vice-Presidents, the truth is that - while the President has a pulse - a Vice-President's main function is ceremonial.  A Vice-President presides over the Senate, unless he is elsewhere, in which case some member of the Senate - nominally, the President Pro Tem, but any member of the majority party will do - fills in. 

Otherwise, the Vice-President is available to meet dignitaries, donors, and Girl Scout troops the President can't fit into his schedule; make speeches to groups the President doesn't need to address; cut ribbons; dedicate things; and attend funerals.

The Vice-President is also available for assignment to major Federal undertakings from which the President would rather distance himself - most often, undertakings with a substantial risk of failure.  As of this writing, for example, Vice-President Mike Pence has been tasked with heading up - in some vague way - the Federal effort to address the novel corona-virus pandemic.

In naming Pence, President Trump has signalled that he, at least vaguely, understands that his administration has badly fumbled its early response.  By losing about two months, the administration has virtually assured that more Americans will be infected, that critical public and private institutions will be more badly disrupted, and that - simply stated - more of us will die than would have happened had our "leader" done his job properly.

But with Pence on the job, Mr. Trump will, to an extent, be able to deflect the blame onto his understudy.  Should things go very badly, Mr. Trump will have a perfect excuse for dumping Mr. Pence in favor of a running-mate - perhaps Nikki Haley - who gives him a better chance of re-election.  Should things go well, Pence will be pushed into the shadows while Trump claims credit.

All of which is to say that Vice-Presidents do have some uses while a President is alive.

But the main function of every Vice-President is to be available to take over if the President dies - which, when you think about it - leads to this curious conclusion:

Of all the people who might have a say in the choice of a presidential candidate's running-mate, the one person certain to be least impacted - if that choice turns out to be consequential - is the person making it.

Because that person will no longer be among the living.

The year 2020 raises the question of the choice of running-mates to an altogether new level of immediacy.  Of the two remaining, viable candidates for the Democratic nomination, the younger - Joe Biden - is 77 years old.  Without going into the question of Biden's mental fitness for the Presidency, the basic fact is that - should he be elected - Biden would take office at the age of 78.  This raises three possible scenarios for a Biden presidency.

It's hardly unimaginable that a man of Biden's age would die in office - or become manifestly unfit to perform his duties - in which case, his Vice-President would become our President.

An equally likely scenario is that Biden would serve out his first term - even if his physical or mental health had rendered him unfit - shielded by the massive protective machinery which surrounds every President.  In such a case, he would almost certainly not run for re-election, but his Vice-President would have an enormous - probably insurmountable - head start in the race to succeed him.

Even should Biden weather his first term intact and decide to seek a second term at the age of 81, he would almost certainly be challenged for renomination and forced to retire.  Again, his Vice-President would be the presumptive nominee of the party.  Any challenger would face an uphill battle against an entrenched party establishment.

Should Bernie Sanders engineer a surprise comeback and seize the 2020 nomination from Biden, he would start his Presidency at 78, facing the same three scenarios in a somewhat modified order of probability.

But in either case, this July, if not before, one old, white man will get to choose - without recourse - a person who is very likely to become his successor as our President.

Upon examination, this makes absolutely no sense.  The trouble is, we don't examine it.  Americans will get into a quadrennial stew about the undemocratic character of the Electoral College, but few question that fact that several modern presidents have been chosen by one man, sitting in a hotel room with a few key advisers.

After today's primaries, it seems highly likely that the Democratic contest for the presidency will be ending its final phase.  An elderly man - chosen largely because of his bland inoffensiveness - will be on the way to an election which seems every day more probable because of the manifest incompetence of the incumbent in an hour of crisis.

That elderly man - whose very prominence was the result of another man's solitary choice twelve years ago - will, in four month's time, have the freedom to nominate someone who will very likely become President as his designated or elected successor.

Americans have just gone through the year-long, extraordinarily expensive, and intermittently entertaining process of choosing a Democratic nominee for president.  Millions of us have contributed to our chosen candidate, attended rallies, or worked as volunteers in this effort.  Millions more have watched some of the endless series of debates, or otherwise researched the candidates on-line, or through other media.

That none of us should have any say in choosing another probable president - that one old man should soon make that choice for us - seems too absurd for words.

The Democratic National Committee has the power to change this, by providing a mechanism which gives its convention some say in the choice of vice-president.  Democrats - regardless of which candidate they have supported or now support - should insist that the DNC take this long overdue step.

We should demand that they do this.

The Highest Priority (It's Not Beating Trump)

As the Democratic caucuses and primaries approach, Americans concerned with ending the current, reactionary regime in Washington must engage in some serious strategic thinking.  And one thing they must come to terms with is this:  Defeating Donald Trump is not the most important thing that can happen in 2020.

Yes, Donald Trump is a loathsome human being.  He is also - which is a different thing - a terrible president.  He manifestly deserves to be defeated in 2020 - ideally by someone whom he cannot stomach losing to.  Ideally by such an overwhelming popular and electoral margin that he refuses even to show up to witness his successor being sworn in.

Or the size of the crowd assembled for that glad day.

But there are two things more important than ending the Trump presidency.  First, we must elect a clear majority of Democrats and/or progressive independents to the US Senate, thus ending the reign of Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.  Second, we must elect a new President who will not be vulnerable to defeat in 2024 by a Republican even worse than Donald Trump.

Keeping these two objectives in mind will likely be too much for some institutional Democrats.  Since its founding, by Andrew Jackson - just years after the final exile of Napoleon Bonaparte - the Democratic Party has always had a profound institutional bias toward heroic presidential leadership, the politics of the "man on a horse".  As a result, Democrats tend to ignore "down-ticket" elections - a fact which has often allowed Republicans to gain more national and state legislative seats than they should, with often dire results.

Moreover, institutional Democrats - being institutionalists - tend to worry only about the next election, rather than the long arc of historical change.  Most of the time, this is understandable.  Parties are, after all, organizations designed to win elections.  But parties are not as evolved as, say, professional sports teams.  Parties have a hard time thinking about "building years".  They should learn.

At times, there are actually things worse than losing a particular presidential election - even the one that happens this year.

Now, I assume I won't have to belabor my first point.  Anyone familiar with recent history will understand - if not absolutely agree with - the argument that Mitch McConnell is actually more dangerous than Donald Trump.  McConnell's management of judicial appointments, by itself, has drastically altered the constitutional scheme the Founders had in mind - denying a sitting President the right to name a Supreme Court justice, and later ramming through the confirmation of a Justice almost absurdly lacking in judicial demeanor, to say nothing of basic integrity.

McConnell's control over budgets, legislation - even the trial phase of the impeachment process - has been equally malign.

Imagine any Democrat moving into the Oval Office next January - with Mitch McConnell still commanding a majority of the Senate.  You will find it difficult to imagine how that new President would be able to accomplish much - legislatively, or even in terms of naming judges.  Mitch McConnell - once a man of some principle - has become the living embodiment of the truth that great power corrupts.  Donald Trump can have, at most, one more term in office.  Mitch McConnell could go on running the Senate for another ten or twelve years.

Ending McConnell's tyranny - by reducing the Republicans to minority status in the Senate - is, for me, Job One.

My second argument may require more consideration.  Donald Trump is so bad - so historically dreadful as President - that it is difficult to imagine that anyone worse could be elected.

But consider the state of today's Republican Party.

Under the terror inspired by Trump, the Republican Party has become, essentially, a cult of personality.  We'd all like to think that defeating Trump would be the equivalent of Dorothy's throwing the bucket of water over the Wicked Witch of the West - that all of the Senators, Congressmen, governors, state legislators, opinion writers, talking heads, and others Trump holds in thrall - would be suddenly and gratefully liberated by his demise.

I suspect the opposite would be true.  One effect of the Trump era has been his purge of what few moderates and principled conservatives the Republican Party still had in office.  Over the past three years, dozens of Senators and Congressmen have decided not to seek re-election.  Those who have hung on have had their spirits broken, their honor stolen. 

What remains of the once presidential Mitt Romney?  What haunting - if easily-imagined - secret has converted Lindsey Graham from the principled legal thinker and shield-bearer to John McCain, to the fawning lick-spittle he has become?

In imagining future Republican candidates - at least for the next few election cycles - we must imagine that they will be creatures of Trump's malign influence.  In the long run, this will likely spell the doom of the Republican Party, but so long as Trump's influence lasts, it also means that future Republican candidates will be cast in his mold.

What if, in 2024, one of these Trump acolytes should win?

The danger is that the next Republican candidate - perhaps one of Trump's own children - will be far more competent than this President.  Trump is, after all, seriously deficient in the qualities that make for an effective dictator.  Aside from his ruthless efficiency in purging the Party of those who defy him, he has proved appallingly ignorant of domestic and foreign affairs; thin-skinned, cowardly and vacillating when criticized; easily-distracted and lazy in carrying out the duties of his office.  He is an aging child, more willful than intelligent, and likely in the early stages of senescence, if not some form of dementia.

It is not hard to imagine a future right-wing populist President who is younger; smarter; better informed; more energetic; more capable of assembling and working with a team; braver; and more resolute than the overgrown child now in the Oval Office. 

And, as that is true, we must understand that defeating Donald Trump will mean little if we do so by electing a President who will be vulnerable to defeat in 2024 - by a new, horribly improved Trump 2.0.

Thus, if ousting Mitch McConnell is Job One, beating Trump by electing a President capable of initiating several consecutive terms of progressive leadership is Job Two.

****

The time to start thinking strategically is now upon us.  The Democratic field is rapidly narrowing.  There appear to be four - at most five - viable options left.  Americans who want to bring the present horror-show to an end must consider, with great care, which candidate will be most likely to help elect a Democratic Senate majority; and most able to create an administrative and legislative record worthy of re-election in 2024; and most successful in passing the torch to another progressive President to succeed her/him.

Defeating Donald Trump will be a daunting task.  But, t'would be great pity, so it would, to do all the work necessary to bring this tyrant down - while leaving undone that which would assure that the entire, distorted movement which he represents falls with him.

Hedging Our Bets (Keep Cory Alive)

I am one of the millions of Americans who - without having much respect for, or trust in, the Democratic Party - will almost certainly vote for the Democratic nominee in next year's presidential election.

As anyone who reads this Gazette regularly will know, I deeply resent being in this predicament.  But that is business for another time.  Right now, my concern is that the deeply flawed Democratic Party should somehow nominate a candidate for President who can do three things:

First, defeat Donald Trump in both the popular and electoral vote - and in a manner sufficiently convincing that there will be no question of the winning candidate assuming power in January, 2021.

Second, have coattails sufficiently long that they will assure the election of a Democratic majority in the US Senate - and the continuation of a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives.

Third, offer the sort of unifying leadership which will permit the next Administration - in conjunction with Congress - to repair the damage that has been done to our Republic by four years of Donald Trump and his snivelling collaborators in what are meant to be two separate, co-equal branches of government.  And also, move boldly forward in addressing the real needs of this nation, and the planet of which it has, until recently, been the leading nation.

Since July, I have borne an active part in the effort to choose the best possible Democratic candidate to achieve these three goals - by supporting the candidacy of Elizabeth Warren, a brilliant, persistent, ambitious Senator with a clear vision for a better future.

I continue to have the highest regard for Senator Warren.  But at this point, after serious deliberation, I am no longer convinced that she is the candidate who can do all three of the things that must be done.

I continue to believe that she is capable of defeating Donald Trump for the presidency, but I have growing doubts that she is the candidate to usher in the Senate majority without which no Democratic President will be able to accomplish what is necessary.

And I am increasingly dubious about her ability to offer the kind of broad-based appeal, and inspiring leadership, which could mobilize a majority of the American people in transforming this country.

Now, doubts are not certainties.  And after the months of hard work I have put into Senator Warren's campaigh - efforts which have taken me all over western Oregon (and far more deeply into the councils of the Democratic Party than feels comfortable) - I am extremely reluctant to change horses in mid-stream.  This is especially true because the horse to which I would change continues to poll in the low single digits, and will not participate in the Democratic Party debate on December 19.

That said, the stakes in this campaign are simply too high for me - or for any of us - to get it wrong.  We dare not nominate - even if we can elect - a President who will not be able to muster the congressional and popular support to do what must be done in the next four years.  No matter how remarkable a candidate might be - no matter how brilliant that candidate's ideas - we need to elect someone who will be able to lead us.

And I am increasingly inclined to believe that that candidate is Senator Cory Booker, of New Jersey.

For now, my position is that Elizabeth Warren needs to make significant changes to her campaign, and greatly simplify and focus her message.  If she made those changes - and won the nomination - I would hope she named Senator Booker as her running-mate.

But it is also my view that all of us - regardless of which front-runner we might support or prefer - must take steps to keep Senator Booker in this race, and to bring him back onstage for all future debates.

Senator Booker is not, as of now, the first choice of many - but he is extraordinarily well-liked by supporters of almost every candidate.  If the party remains divided - and Booker remains viable - he offers the best chance by far of being the "dark horse" candidate who can unify a divided party and lead it to victory in November.

And, because he is so likable, so energetic - and so unthreatening - he is absolutely the candidate who can help us elect a Democratic Senate majority.

I hope to return to this theme in future posts.  For now, I urge every reader to send a small contribution to Senator Booker's campaign.  Should you be contacted by a polling group, I encourage you - at least for now - to consider naming him as your choice for President.

And, if you are at all in agreement with the ideas expressed - however imperfectly - in this post, I urge you to share it with your friends and colleagues.

Senator Booker is, at present, the first choice of a small percentage of those who oppose President Trump.  But the time might well come when we need him, as the one candidate who can bring together the increasingly divided and mutually hostile supporters of the four leading candidates - and keep us together through November, and beyond.

The Schweiker Gambit

In 1976, Ronald Reagan - on the point of losing his challenge to President Gerald Ford for the Republican nomination - decided to take a gamble.  Weeks before the Republican National Convention, he announced that his running-mate would be Richard Schweiker, a moderate Senator from Pennsylvania.

The Schweiker Gambit was the result of desperation.  Despite his popularity, Reagan was being severely schooled in the awesome power of incumbency.  In the end, the gambit failed.  Indeed, it appeared to backfire, temporarily damaging Reagan's credibility with the party's aggressive and growing right wing.

In 1980, when Reagan won the nomination, he did not repeat his move.  His ultimate choice of George H. W. Bush came at the last possible moment, surprising nearly everyone.  The Schweiker Gambit has not been used by a significant major-party presidential candidate since the Gipper first introduced it, over 40 years ago.

But does that mean it should never again be tried?

In this year's Democratic field, three of the four leading candidates share one unusual characteristic:  All are over 70.  The oldest, Bernie Sanders (78) maintains a blistering pace on the campaign trail, despite his recent heart attack.  But still, that heart attack happened.  A year younger, Joe Biden campaigns more sedately, conserving his energy and trying to avoid the verbal slips which - though they have followed him throughout his career - might now be taken as evidence that he is losing a step, mentally.

The youngest of the three, Elizabeth Warren, seems to be driven by some inexhaustible power source - as though she embodies the case for alternative energy within her slender frame.  Still, she is 70 years old, and the questions which surround her male rivals cannot entirely be ignored in her case.

In a race in which three of the four principal Democratic candidates - and the incumbent president - are in their 70s, the question arises:  Should the Schweiker Gambit be revived?  And if so, how would that be done?

The case for a candidate naming her or his running-mate can certainly be made.  By long tradition, both parties routinely ratify the vice-presidential choices of their presidential nominees.  Virtually no mechanism exists for denying a newly-nominated candidate her or his choice.  Whatever scrutiny exists is performed entirely by the new presidential nominee's campaign staff. 

Yet the choice of a running-mate can be among the most important decisions a future president makes.  Search your historic memory for one thing William McKinley did that could possibly rival his choice of Teddy Roosevelt as his running-mate in 1900.  Consider the dramatic results of FDR's choosing Harry Truman.  Or JFK's decision to team up with his rival, Lyndon Johnson.

A case could certainly be made for the two major parties playing a greater role in vetting vice-presidential nominees.  In our national history, eight vice-presidents have succeeded to office upon the death of a president.  Two more - Martin Van Buren and George H. W. Bush - won election immediately following the president under whom they had served.

The mathematical probability is that the election of 2020 will be between two individuals in their seventies.  Considering this fact, the likelihood of the next vice-president succeeding to the presidency has grown disturbingly high.  Since the parties themselves seem unable to apply serious scrutiny to their candidates' choice of running-mates, perhaps the people themselves - through the primary process - should have a voice.

But how would this be done? 

It should be remembered that the Schweiker Gambit was a last-minute roll of the dice by a candidate on the verge of losing the nomination.  It should also be remembered that it did not work.  For any of the three septuagenarian Democratic front-runners suddenly to introduce a running-mate could be taken - likely would be taken - as a sign of desperation.

But what if the Democratic Party itself suggested this step?  What if the candidates agreed to it?  Perhaps best of all, what if a popular groundswell developed, demanding that all of the older candidates - or perhaps, all of the candidates, regardless of age - name their prospective running-mates before the Iowa caucuses? 

For certain, the people voting in the caucuses and primaries would be better informed, having teams to choose from, rather than individuals - one of whom would end up with an unrestricted choice next summer.

Moving toward an early choice of running-mates could also do something about the disturbing tendency of the Democratic presidential race to become a contest among white candidates.  There would be enormous pressure on all of the leading Democratic contenders to choose running-mates of color - which would restore a sense of inclusion to a contest which threatens to forfeit the enthusiasm of millions of citizens. 

Ideally, of course, candidates of color will remain in the contest for the top job.  And for certain, the Democratic Party must take serious steps to revise their debate rules so that this is the last campaign in which all candidates of color risk elimination before the first caucus or primary vote is cast.

But for 2020, we are where we are.  One hopes that Cory Booker will rally in time to rack up stronger polling numbers - or finds a way to carry on his campaign without participating in the December debate.  But for now, Booker's campaign appears to be in trouble.

That said, with high-quality candidates of color dropping out because of depleted  funds or low polling numbers, there are a number of outstanding vice-presidential choices available to candidates still in the race. 

Perhaps 2020 is the year to revive the Schweiker Gambit. 

Calling on the surviving Democratic candidates to name their running-mates in January would reassure Americans concerned that so many of their choices are in their eighth decade of life.  It would, for the first time in memory, give Americans at least some role in choosing a candidate who might well succeed to the presidency.  And it might - however imperfectly - restore at least some diversity to a contest fast becoming all-white, and very nearly all-senior.