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.
What about emphasizing how our military presence in Iraq has hurt us at home and in the long run? Commercials with those generals from the convention. Barry McCafferty.
Remind people that when Katrina hit, the Louisiana National Buard was in Iraq [get the numbers].
It is hard for me to see how Democratic office-seekers I support are supposed to signal “responsible change” by capitulating to and collaborating with the very authors of catastrophe in the other and our own party. That is especially true when it comes to what people know to be and actually experience as zero-sum matters, not as “win-win” pabulum from policy peddlers or “hold harmless” protectionism from a plainly ineffectual Congress.
Those zero-sum matters include a defense budget, which is mostly pork and obsolescence.
They certainly include the constant compounding of losses piled up by improvident lenders with a huge lobby and keys to the Treasury. CRIME PAYS VERY WELL INDEED!
They surely include Congressional perks, which are doled out in Congress on the basis of (a) rain-making, (b) seniority, and (c) interest-group connections in that order, with nothing but obloquy for either original or actually courageous members.
So, if everybody and everything in Washington is going to be “win-win” or, at least, “hold harmless”, how do Democratic leaders, actual or would-be, signal any “responsible change” at all?
What are the “tells” we, as petit jurors that our lawyer-legislators pander to, can look for?
Most voters do not live in the juvenile fantasy world of military costumes and chicken-hawk posturing of the Thatcherites, Darbyites, and Trotskyites in the White House. But, they do not have any respect either for the hand-wringing pity party that “supports the troops” with the self-serving military budget “priorities” and endless tribute for foreign creditors and blackmailers our foreign lenders and borrowers alike hire as lobbyists.
We have universal video-game playing now, not universal military training or even a well regulated militia. Still, most voters do live in a savage world of economic zero- and negative-sum games or, in some cases, a childish world of whining for comfort food and recognition. In any case, few of us walk away fabulously wealthy from “public-private partnerships” we just looted or act as the lawyer, lobbyist, or apologist for.
We out here have no Congressional benefits, pensions, and entourages. So, we wonder about and resent cowardly politicians whose only concept of risk is truth-telling, sexual exploit, or failure to comply with the rules of legal graft.
I really like GQR’s work. It’s refreshingly fact-based, dispassionate and insightful. Excellent recommendations for policy and communication. My only comment on this particular report is that whatever national security posture the Democrats take, it must be authentic, organic and fit into a overall Democratic “brand.” As good as these recommendations are, they can’t just be talking points. (I love the irony of a recommendation based on a poll that reveals Democrats are disliked for using polls…).
To me it’s simple; David Plouffe should focus his campaign strategy around these talking points.
-John McCain still has the cold war mentality. We need a leader who is open to new approaches and innovative strategies….Strategies that will make our Country safer, better our relationships with foreign allies and ultimately, restore our reputation throughout the World. BARACK OBAMA IS THAT LEADER.
-The modern World needs a unifier and not a divider and war monger like McCain. Obama will sit down with friends and enemies while McCain will take the Bush-Cheney approach; have “talks” with no one, alienate your allies and conduct foreign policy in a reckless and arrogant way. The mess we are now experiencing is a result of the Bush-Cheney policies that McCain WANTS TO CONTINUE.
-Finally and MOST IMPORTANTLY; Obama was a Freshman Senator who had the courage to stand up to the President, Republicans and even many of his own colleagues and OPPOSE the War in Iraq. In 2002, Obama said we should focus ALL OF OUR EFFORTS on capturing Bin Laden and finishing the war with al-qaida. This type of foresight
should signify to all his readiness to be our President.