Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
For a National Unity Ticket in 2020
It should be clear to most people after the fiasco in Helsinki earlier this week, that Donald Trump shouldn’t be President. I don’t know how you can look at that press conference and say, “Yes, that man should be President. America made a good choice.” At the same time, no one reading this wants to turn the government over to the Democratic Party, which is currently at war with itself over whether it wants to be moderately progressive or fully embrace democratic socialism.
We’re approaching a point where the divisiveness of our politics could cause serious long-term damage, or worse still, take a violent turn. Political violence is an aberration in our system, but if the situation continues to deteriorate, it could come to blood.
With an unfit Republican president on the one hand and a scary Democratic Party on the other hand, where does that leave us for 2020? There is a clear need for national healing, how do we bring it about?
I’d like to suggest an option: a bipartisan unity ticket in 2020.
The idea is that the Democrats would nominate an elder statesman. Someone who is not a fire-breathing socialist, with extensive experience in government, who is at the end of their political career. In my mind, I picture Joe Biden for the role. He would then, in turn, pick an anti-Trump Republican, someone like Jeff Flake, Ben Sasse, or John Kasich. (Mitt Romney or James Mattis, being elder statesmen types, might also work.) The ticket would then pledge to only serve one term and not seek reelection.
To continue the idea, the cabinet and other appointments would be roughly split 50/50 (this isn’t outlandish, cabinets are often bipartisan), judicial nominations would focus on consensus choices, or the President and VP would take turns picking, and Supreme Court picks would be of people over 60. The idea, overall, would be to focus on consensus building in governing, with the end of national healing. Or, in the words of President Harding, “a return to normalcy.”
Before you condemn this plan as a fantasy, I hasten to note there has been a unity ticket before in American history. In 1864, Abraham Lincoln ran with Andrew Johnson, a Democrat. Those were extraordinary circumstances to be sure, but there is precedent.
Are there problems with this plan? Difficulties? Objections? Practical points that would need to be worked out? Sure. The biggest obstacle would be the need for an elder statesman to step forward and be willing to prioritize healing the nation over their own personal ambition. In fact, it would require a whole cadre of people willing to prioritize national healing over temporary political experience. But it could be done if someone chose to step forward and be a leader.
Published in General
To be fair, this was just a random sampling of terrible Johnson positions from the campaign; his party adopted them only insofar as they nominated him and insofar as they refrained from criticizing him (which was an almost total restraint; Fred’s “binary choice” approach in which the sins of the adult parties makes internal criticism unwelcome is typical of party functionaries). There’s a variety of strains in the LP, arguing over various abstract ideas, and identifying “the party’s view” is as hard as with any group of people, but the party’s nominee of the last two years has been unusually radical in his pursuit of expanded state, federal, and foreign government.
His personal corruption, dishonesty, ignorance, and other profound character flaws are more typical of third party and other fringe movements, though; it’s hard to attract the best when your claims to be contending for serious prizes aren’t given in good faith.
I thought you were talking about the LP. Isn’t this why people did not want to vote for Trump? ;)
They’re surprisingly similar figures, with surprisingly similar philosophies and virtually identical reading lists. Fortunately, while Trump started off surrounding himself with similar people to Johnson, including Roger Stone, who left the party to become LP to become Johnson’s campaign manager, then rejoined for Trump, Trump repeatedly upgraded his inner circle during the campaign and again once in office. This means that while there are some things that Trump takes a “can’t learn/ won’t learn” approach to, like the meaning of “trade deficit”, the number of issues is smaller.
On the flip side, Trump is bigger and louder, with vastly more charisma, which makes him a lot easier to hate than Johnson. Speaking to those who’ve talked to Johnson in their journalistic efforts, pity has often encouraged them not to write about him in a way that it would never redound to Trump’s benefit. So, for instance, several journalists have talked to me about his telling them that he lied about immigration, and that they were surprised by his apparent ignorance of their profession. But, the joke was kind of on them, because I’ve never seen it in print; this was in 2012, but to a man they said that they thought that his day had passed. His gentler affect when he’s not losing his temper and his lack of threat when he does lose it (which is fairly frequent) may be his strongest character advantage over Trump, but it’s not nothing. Also, while his first wife was super pissed at him, we don’t have the details of why, nor why his fiancée is still unmarried 9 years into their engagement. So maybe he behaves better than Trump with women, too.
In a nation that has consistently allowed for one million people a year to become legal citizens, I don’t see how Pres Trump or anyone else can be considered anti-immigration. (As long as they don’t advocate for the rescission of the ability of one million new citizens to come about.)
As far as being opposed to rampant illegal immigration, a person only has to view what has happened to California over the last 35 years to understand why rampant immigration is opposed. A state that once had a primary and higher educational system that was envied by almost all other states. Which system is now only one slot higher than the state of Mississippi’s. Where back when Calif held only 18 million citizens, it could spend 40% of its budget on infra structure. Now the state holds 42 million people, and can afford to spend only 20% of its budget on infra structure.
Sure Gov Jerry Brown states the budget is in good shape, but that is because things once offered by the state are now handled, budget-wise, by the county. My small county of 89,000 people is already 5 million dollars in the hole, in part because the fire fighting planes sent to our area from Idaho and other states are expensive. So our money has been spent in adapting to the huge waves of immigration that have impacted us since NAFTA. At points in time when immigration was heavy, the city of Los Angeles ws absorbing some quarter of a million people in a single year. Sure it is a large place, but think of the impact on any one metro area. Think of how rents go? Think of how many clinics need to be built. How many hospitals, schools, rehab centers and jails need to be built or expanded.(And the numbers of new illegal people is finally tapering off because of Trump.)
People in the northern counties drive dangerous twisty back roads that have no guard rails, even when the 2 lane road is overlooking a 1,500 foot ravine. So now we pay 12 cents on the gallon to help bring about needed road repairs and needed structures. (Many of us suspect the already expensive state taxes on gasoline have been siphoned off as slush funds.)
We lost twice that many, and we’re one country. I imagine you could compare money spent and see an even more dramatic difference.
It’s legitimate to be irritated with Luxembourg or Belgium not paying its way. It seems less reasonable to punish the good members (and, not by coincidence, it’s the good members who tend to have Russian borders). The Estonians, Poles, Brits, etc., are doing their bit because this stuff matters to them. Countries in which there’s less domestic confidence that NATO is useful aren’t the ones that are undercut by US withdrawal.
I am irritated with anyone in Europe whom we protect complaining about America’s military in anyway. No marches, no protests, no complaints by governments unwilling to put up their own money. The EU cannot project power at all. Even the UK could no longer project to retake the Falklands.
In short, Western Europe needs to shut up and be grateful instead of complaining all the time. We saved them from the Germans, the Germans from themselves, and them all from the USSR. The Eastern European nations are grateful.
So, just to be clear, you’re opposed to reducing American commitments to Eastern Europe? I don’t think that there really is much of a NATO commitment to Western Europe. We have large bases in Germany and the UK, but the purpose of EUCOM and such isn’t primarily to defend Germany and the UK, any more than CENTCOM’s Qatar base is about defending Qatar (30 years ago, EUCOM was about defending Germany).
In the UK, Canada, and France, which do most of the non-US security work for American ideals abroad, only the UK makes the 2% number (it’s often forgotten that that number is fairly new; it was an Obama initiative from 2014, and countries don’t have to hit the goal before 2024, which France probably will and Canada probably won’t). I kind of hear you when you suggest that there shouldn’t be governmental complaints from Canada (I don’t know if you oppose disagreement from the French government, or if you think that being in line with the Wales Declaration’s 2024 target is fine), although I don’t think I agree with the strong version of that. To put it another way, I think that the French, Canadians, etc. shouldn’t go overboard, but they shouldn’t have to be dishonest about their views on things. I should note that some of the criticism I dislike the most comes from countries like Greece and Turkey that do spend on defense, but not all in a particularly pro-NATO way.
Where I find myself really struggling, though, is with the protest thing. Do you really believe that the less militant governments in Europe should limit their citizens freedom of speech in broad ways to prevent their citizens from criticizing allied governments? My level of incomprehension makes me feel, just for a moment, the first real political sympathy I’ve had with <span class="atwho-inserted" contenteditable="false" data-atwho-at-query="@fred“>@fredcole in years. ;-)
The 2% commitment goes back in one form or another at least to the Bush 43 administration.
James, I don’t understand how you want to make everything a government policy. Perhaps it is because of your work.
I am not calling on governments to limit speech. I am calling on citizens, protected by the might of the United States of America to quit complaining about their protector. America put its very existence on the line in the cold war to protect Western Europe. The citizens should show a little gratitude, not a drumbeat of anger. The governments don’t need to lie, but they also (I think) should not pander to the people on anti-American sentiment. And if the EU wants to be a rival superpower, it out to work towards a real military with force projection. If the UK wants to keep control of what is left of its empire, then by golly, it should have a military capable of doing so.
Now, I am all for the US having bases around the world to help us project power. I am far more willing to deal with threats before they reach our shores. I would rather not invade nations to turn them, as clearly, that does not work, unless we follow the Germany/Japan model, and we have no will to do that as a Republic. I am for punitive reminders about who has the power. I am for letting nations who want to live in the 9th century do so, as long as they don’t harbor people who want to attack us.
In short, I want a foreign policy that is focused only on what is best for America and her citizens. If that means treating allied nations well, so be it. If that means flying spy missions over enemies with impunity, so be that. If it means getting allies to pony up a share for their own defense, I am for that.
If you’re not calling for policy change, I guess I’m not sure what you do want. A change in human nature?
I don’t think he’s calling for a change in human nature (which is largely static), but a change in culture (which happens constantly). Policy is not the only way to achieve such.
I am wishing that the disrespectful, ungrateful jerks in other nations would shut the crap up
You know really, it is not unreasonable for someone to wish that their fellow human beings might stop hating him just because his nation saved their butts and keep their butts safe.
Seriously, Western Europeans are a sorry bunch. America had to intervene in two wars, saving them from themselves twice. Now, they lack the ability to defend themselves. They don’t want to pay their way, and they want to blame America for everything.
Western Europe only exists because America saved them three times, two from hot wars, and one from a cold one. And they hold us in contempt.
Well, it is normal and human to resent it. If I could, I would be happy to tell Russia, “Hey, do whatever you want. They seem to hate us. Guess they will love you,” and see how they like it.
This last bit sounds like policy. But it’s not the Western Europeans who would be handed over by a US withdrawal. It’s the Eastern Europeans. Russia isn’t going to invade Paris any time soon, but countries that currently have a rogue state border might reasonably fear the normal and human emotions you’re talking about. They don’t deserve to be punished for the wrongs of others.
You really want to make my personal wishes policy wishes.
Dude, you have spent far too much of your life in government circles, apparently. Even when I say I am not making policy thoughts, you insist on saying that they are. Do you think I am lying?
Let me be even more clear: If I had a magical wand, I’d wave it, and place all of Western Europe under the control of the USSR for 24 hours to see what it would have been like, It’s a Wonderful Life style. It is wishful thinking, nothing more.
I am not calling for anything in policy.