in the primary. Why should anyone vote for the person he wants in second place?
The Bush years have taught us a significant and valuable lesson. We now know that the entire country can be run from the vice president's office. Pretty effectively, in fact, if measured against their stated intentions. No administration in history provides a clearer example than the Bush-Cheney regime that the country can be completely managed by someone other than the president. Simultaneously, Bush has taught us that being a likable figurehead can get one a four year contract renewal. We should sincerely thank President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for this valuable lesson.
What additional insight might be gained should we compare this configuration of the American political system to states with different positions for head of state and head of government? Could we parlay our system into one with a cordial, likable, spirited head of state, and a competent manager running the government? A Royal and a COO?
Is anybody thinking Clinton - Obama - Clinton - Obama - Clinton?
I will wage a fiver that a much larger majority of Americans would campaign for, vote for and enthusiastically support a ticket containing the two together in any combination - The Grand Compromise - than either could garner alone.
The primary variable for all Americans and all Democrats interested in a Grand Compromise is our inclination to give sufficient power to the candidate holding the second place ribbon at the convention. More is better. Even so, ordinary democrats may need to articulately, and yet forcefully, demand the Grand Compromise at the convention regardless of what happens beforehand.
Vote in the primary for the person you want second on the ticket. Vote for the Grand Compromise.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment