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.
Governor Crist probably did as well as he could with the political cards that he was holding, but progressives shouldn’t be fooled into thinking that most of those 950,000 ex-felons will have their rights restored any time soon.
Before they get their rights to vote back, they have to pay what was described in the NYT as “restitution.” This sounds like compensation for the victims, but it probably is a short hand for all court costs, fines, and victim restitution that the court has ordered.
At the moment, we have a similar law here in Washington, with the result that most ex-felons have not had their voting rights restored. That is because when they are discharged they often can get only low wage jobs and can’t pay off the court ordered financial obligations, which continue to increase because of interest. In effect, this requirement is a de facto poll tax. Even when they have paid their court ordered costs, there are numerous bureaucratic hurdles to get their status recognized by the state so that they can legally vote. Ex-felons in Florida are likely to face the same bureaucratic hurdles which will delay restoration of the voting rights of most or at least many.
The message is that Crist has taken a good step, but progressives should monitor the implementation process closely and speak up strongly if it turns out that actual progress in restoring voting rights is glacial. Progressives should continue to pressure Florida to adopt a system like that in place in other states, e.g. when you serve your prison time and parole time you can vote. We all have an interest in seeing ex-felons integrated into society. It is hard enough for them without the state taking pains to point out(by denying their right to vote) that they aren’t full citizens.
The post says that Crist “approved a measure.” Was this a statute or other measure that required approval of the GOP Legislature? If so, whatever got them to approve such a politically disadvantageous move? If it was something Crist could do on his own, any info on what pressures he was under from his party not to do it, and why he did it anyway?