I read a Thomas Friedman column this week that really required a smackdown. So I supplied one at New York:
How much political capital should Democrats invest in a probably doomed effort to save the political career of Liz Cheney? Earlier this week, Never Trump Republican Linda Chavez penned a column urging Wyoming Democrats to take a dive this November in order to give the incumbent a chance to survive as an independent, assuming (as it safe) that Cheney will be purged in her own party’s primary. And now, in an apparent coincidence, in comes New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman suggesting a far more radical step by Democrats to align themselves with the small slice of Republicans who follow Cheney’s example in repudiating Donald Trump. He wrote:
“Is that what America needs in 2024 — a ticket of Joe Biden and Liz Cheney? Or Joe Biden and Lisa Murkowski, or Kamala Harris and Mitt Romney, or Stacey Abrams and Liz Cheney, or Amy Klobuchar and Liz Cheney? Or any other such combination.”
Friedman phrases this as a question, but clearly he thinks it’s a good idea given the “existential moment” America would face if Trump is allowed to regain the presidency in 2024. It’s a bit of a loaded question, too, since it postulates that nothing short of a previously unimaginable “sacrifice” by Democrats and Never Trump Republicans alike can stop Trump — and that it would, in fact, succeed in stopping Trump.
I certainly agree that Democrats dumping Kamala Harris to give their vice-presidential nomination to a conservative Republican who opposes legalized abortion and is a militarist by conviction and heredity would be a “sacrifice,” to put it very mildly. It would also be very, very weird. Friedman cites the recent establishment of a mind-bending coalition government in Israel to thwart Bibi Netanyahu as a development comparable to what he is suggesting. But as he acknowledges, Israel has a parliamentary system in which multiparty coalitions are the rule rather than the exception. A presidential system in which parties invariably run separate tickets for the top job is another thing altogether.
The U.S. has had exactly one example of multiparty fusionism in a presidential election. In 1864, in the midst of the Civil War, Republicans nominated Democrat Andrew Johnson of Tennessee — then serving as U.S. military governor of Tennessee — to run with Lincoln on a “Union” ticket. The experiment did not turn out well, beginning with Johnson’s drunken inaugural address in 1865 and continuing with the racist solidarity he exhibited toward ex-Confederates after Lincoln’s assassination, culminating in his impeachment and near removal from office. There are important reasons politicians sort themselves out into major parties, which should be apparent in an era of polarization over issues other than the scofflaw behavior of Donald Trump.
Is the threat of Trump’s return to the White House the equivalent of the U.S. Civil War? Not in itself, I would contend, though that horrific development could lead eventually to grave conditions comparable if not equal to a civil war. The premise that a Biden-Cheney fusion ticket would uniquely doom Trump to failure is even more dubious. There has never been much evidence of a mass following for Never Trump Republicans, and such as it is, it is mostly composed of people who would (and did in 2020) gladly vote for Biden and Harris. The baleful effect that replacing Harris with Cheney on the ticket would have on Democratic turnout could easily offset or exceed the alleged benefits of bipartisan and trans-ideological fusion.
So Democrats should say thanks, but no thanks, to Friedman for the idea of submitting their party to some sort of unwieldy and unnatural coalition of national salvation, so long as there is the slightest possibility of beating Trump the old-fashioned way. Liz Cheney deserves great respect for the courage she has shown in defying Trump at the expense of her own career, and if Biden is reelected with her support, perhaps she deserves an ambassadorship, a minor Cabinet post, or a major sub-Cabinet position. But she has no business being at the top of the line of succession to a Democratic president.
Did the NPR survey include only NPR listeners? If so, it is perfectly irrelevant since these people are much more intelligent than average Americans.
I would love to get more feedback on ED’s question. Do any of you personally know of anyone who voted for Gore in 2000 and who will be voting for Bush in 2004? I do not know anyone. In addition, with all of the stories I have read over the past year, I have only heard of one person who voted for Gore and who will vote for Bush — with literally dozens who voted for Bush who are undecided or who will definately vote for Kerry. Since this is a very unscientific sample, can anyone provide more data points?
Thanks,
Paul
It’s easy for some of the Blitzer/Dobbs polls to be manipulated. Atrios is famous for “torturing” them by sending literally thousands of hits to their polls. However the polls on the main page draw a much larger audience, and I would think it’s hard to ‘freep’ a poll with half a million responses. I still think it is likely that they simply reflect the blue state views. But the blue states probably account for more than 60% of the population. So that begs the question, how does a Gallup poll of 800 people break down demographically?
Kaus, I didn’t mean those turncoat politicians. I was talking about the average electorate. Ed.
Ron Silver a dem? Are you kidding. He’s been a right-winger for yhears.
I vote in some of those on-line polls on CNN Wolf Blitzer and Lou Dobbs has one every day. They are always like 90% for the Liberal view. Cnn is not so Liberal but not as far to the Right as FOX. So it’s hard to tell how true these polls are.
I happened by an online poll on the CNN website which had almost 500,000 responses! And the results were 58% Kerry, 40% Bush. At the very least this says that people who use the web regularly are overwhelmingly for Kerry. This also jibes with Kerry’s margins on the East and West coasts. And it suggests that these national polls are heavily skewed to midwest states. Is that possible?
All Kerry needs to say regarding the war on terror now that Bush says it cannot be won — Bush is wrong! We not only can win the war on terror we WILL win the war on terror! I’m sorry the President feels we do not have the capacity to win this war, for the American people expect victory.
Ed, there are some Dems supporting Bush. Zell Miller, Ed Koch, Ron Silver come to mind. All together there’s probably several dozen of them in the nation, and they’ve all been recruited to appear at the RNC.
Scott.. this is a great moment for Kerry to talk on foreign policy.. great moment for him to talk about alliances to win this war on terror… its a beaming opportunity… I just hope these folks can ride this wave to the shore..
cheers
he said the war on terror can’t be won? I missed that – we need to go after that bigtime – don’t remember any Democrats saying the war on terror can’t be won – we just said invading Iraq wouldn’t contribute to it . . .
I wonder why I don’t see or hear of any Demorcrats for Bush? But, I know of a whole bunch of Republicans for Kerry? I bet there are very few if any one that voted for Gore who are going to vote for Bush. The numbers are many who voted for Bush in 2000 and now are voteing for Kerry.
It looks like Bush is softening his stance on everything… he agrees that he was involved in that smear campaign, he agrees that Kerry is a hero and served honorably, he says that the war on terror cant be won anymore.
Are we talking a flip-flopper here? Are we seeing a president who has become soft on the under belly? Are we looking at someone who has shifted position on his base and expects them to follow? Is he now appealing to a different type of voter, moderates maybe? Where is he going with this softer Bush approach?
Are we now being shown a compassionate Bush? No staying the course anymore? Maybe he turned the corner himself and left the economy behind.
I hope the DEMS realise that he is providing added fodder and fuel for direct attacks on his policies. He has literally opened a gaping hole on his presidency and left it there for issues to be put on the table and debated. There is even room to classify him as a flip-flopper because this new approach goes contrary to everything he has been preaching for the past four years.
Rise up Kerry supporter and DEMS… another golden opportunity is here.
Cheers
John Kerry said the same thing on Chris Matthews show a while back. He said “Chris, I am going to win this thing”!
It means that when you overcount Republicans and undercount Democrats, Republican candidates usually come out ahead.
Call me crazy, but we’re going to win this thing.
So you can choose your poll: Gallup and others have Bush ahead, Zogby and NPR have Kerry ahead. Who knows what it all means, except that we (Dems) have to keep working and donating money to the cause right up to election day.