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.
The worst thing the Democrats could do is run as a Republican-lite party. National issues are going to be healthcare, taxes, corruption, and jobs, and the Democrats can make it work if they adopt Medicare-For-All, repeal tax cuts on bug business, continue to point out the naked corruption in the GOP/Trump run Washington, and push for a federal jobs guarantee.
There’s no need to play into “white identity politics.” There’s no need to roll back anything having to do with equal rights, protecting Dreamers, gay rights, or majority supported gun restrictions, or anything else. There’s absolutely no need to sit here and play to people who are ultimately going to just see the “Republican-lite” strategy as just a weak alternative to the “real thing.”
I thought we werent supposed to be backtracking about the previous election. How about not trying to make a kinder version of the Republican party? You got to go outside of their boxes if you want to get anywhere. Don’t be Republican lite, that is ultimately advertising yourself as 2nd choice and empowering them to go further.
The Democrat Party should be the party of family values – all families.
(I would also like to see it be antiwar, for those very same reasons–at least seeking a way out of this. There is no national conversation) their policies should be explained as how they are good for all families because that makes the most sense and has the highest priority.
Healthcare, the safety net, environment, education and so on.
The Republican party can try to use those words but everyone knows they are very selective in who they want to serve and how.
On the race issue and how some who identify as white working class judge the democrat party: politicians and their political parties job description doesnt involve choosing who they serve or decide who they won’t, certainly not for judging an individual or groups religion, who they marry, what color their skin is, what language they speak, what job they have or do not.
We don’t need a government to serve as the judge and executioner for religion, race, sex, language, nature. Democrats don’t want to be that.
There is no shame in a politician or political party working for all Americans
And also lets not forget being qualified for a job has never meant that you shouldn’t have the job. Who hires someone that says they’re going to destroy your business?
I was interested in your newletter and adovocacy efforts until I read the word “White”. Racism of any kind is not ok. Consequently, I’m unsubscribing.