The strength of Obama's candidacy, the organization and re-vitalization of the progressive electorate, his choice of Joe Biden, and today's announcement of McCain's abysmal choice for the GOP's second slot - all got me just a little bit giddy. Just as the Republicans were able to put together a string of electoral successes, occupying the White House in 28 out of the last 40 years, it appears as if we could be on the brink of embarking on our own string of successes. A Democratic Era. And it couldn't come a minute too soon.
I know I'm getting way ahead of myself - we need to work hard to win in November - but on the eve of a Labor Day weekend, can't we bask in the glow of last night's speech and dream?
Despite what pundits and CW say, modern American politics has been characterized more by single-party rule than bi-partisan rule - not overwhelmingly, I will grant, but enough to put the lie to the CW and the bloviators. For example, I would recommend this chart.
Yet the pundits and CW say that Americans actually prefer a Congress and Presidency of different parties - as a check on each other. It turns out, however, that the need for a check on the Executive only seems really necessary and prudent when a Republican is President:
- Nixon's authoritarian and Reagan's hyper-conservative impulses were checked by the Democratic Congress.
- Bill Clinton's Presidency could have been the beginning of a modern Democratic Era, but without Democrats in control of Congress the last 6 of his 8 years, well... you know how that turned out.
- And we saw in the first six years of the Bush Administration that a party putatively in control of both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue can let the Executive run roughshod. (That all changed in 2006, thankfully.)
History actually tells us that real change and real progress happen when a single party holds the keys to both Congress and the White House. But not just any single party... the Democratic Party. FDR and the New Deal. LBJ and the Great Society. Big change (which is what we need right now) requires Democratic control.
Likewise, history tells us that real danger lies when a single party holds the keys... the Republican Party. Witness the first 6 years of Bush 43, Warren G. Harding (Teapot Dome), Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover (the Great Depression).
So, it's clear (at least to me): This nation needs Democrats in control of Congress and the Executive, at the same time, not only to enact and implement our agenda, but to build and protect our position and our future. We have the Congress now (the Senate only barely), and look to improving our position in November. And Obama/Biden could very well take the GE with a mandate-quality margin.
With that history and our bright November prospects as prelude, let's look to the future, and have a little fun.
I think it's safe (and a little discouraging) to say, it's going to take more than 4 years to clean up the mess that George W. Bush, Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, Ronald Reagan, and their crew have created. Neither candidate is promising to fix any of our big problems by the end of their first term, with the exception of extricating ourselves from Iraq. Our manufacturing sector is gone, shipped overseas. Our reliance on fossil fuels of all types and origins make us junkies to Mideast oil and mountaintop coal. Our educational system, our justice system, our healthcare system, our global ecosystem... every major system you can name is broken and on life support at best.
To address the challenges we face, we need a strategy to take control. The Republicans cannot be given a chance. Bi-partisanship with criminals is criminal itself. We need something that can stop the Republicans mid-sentence, shout "STFU!", move them out of our way. Only then can we make the big changes that will turn around our dire situation, and gain the lasting trust of the American people that change for the better really is possible... when you let the Democrats do it. That's what happened in 1932 when FDR and the Democrats swept into office, and that's what needs to happen now.
What are the key components of such a strategy?
If you look to the Republicans' recent history (before 2006), and what accounted for their success (beyond the Rovian use of wedge issues and non-issues), you must admit that at least until 2006, they were pretty good at picking candidates that either had familiar names (Nixon, Reagan, Bush 43, even Bush 41), had no histories or fuzzy histories (Bush 41 and Bush 43) or were legends-without-basis (Reagan). Even after the ignominious exit of Richard Nixon, the Democrats were only able to muster a single-term Administration (Carter), such is the strength of the Republican approach; they came back with star power (Reagan).
This year, the Republicans thought they could ride to victory on the strength of McCain's legend (POW, maverick, straight-talk), but that now seems to be shot full of holes, and getting ever more tattered by the minute. So they have a familiar name (McCain), who is daily being exposed for not being who the American public was led to think he was. And he picks one of the least experienced, least qualified running mates in all of American history.
An oft-cited reason for the Republican era over the past 40 years is the emphasis they placed on fighting and winning local races... starting at the school board, city and county commissioners, state reps, etc. They realized, to their credit, that not only is that the farm system from which future governors and U.S. House and Senate candidates are drawn, creating talent but also name recognition; it also gets the voters into the habit of voting for the party. Voter habit (party affiliation) is a strong force in electoral politics. That's why Obamacans (and the Reagan Democrats before them) are so noteworthy.
With Howard Dean's 50-State Strategy and Barack Obama's grass-roots, ground-up organizing, and the hugely energized progressive base - and thanks to Bush/Cheney cronyism, war-profiteering, incompetence, indifference and all-around trashing of the American economy and our reputation around the world - we now have the beginnings of a Democratic Era. The good news is that an extended Democratic Era built on an active and invigorated grass-roots foundation could result, over time, in the kind of truly progressive, sweeping programs and policies we all want and need.
In addition to organizing and applying resources on local politics, we also need to be smarter about selecting our national tickets. As Democrats and progressives, we need to stop playing checkers and start playing chess. Howard Dean's 50-State Strategy is key. Barack Obama's grass-roots organizaingcomplements that, and puts more energy and hands to the effort. But we also need to be smarter about how we go about developing and selecting candidates for office, so we have better and better electoral results in 2 years, 4 years, 8 years.
For example (and what I hope is the fun part of this diary), Barack Obama could set up the Democrats for a new Era, with just a few deft Cabinet choices. Like I said, let's dream a little...
Let's assume a substantial win for Obama, a generous pickup in the House and Senate and even at the local levels. A good start.
And if Barack Obama and Congress deliver on their promises, we should see a second term. After that, who? That's where I see a strategic Cabinet pick might help.
Obama could set us up for a Democratic Era, and set up his chosen successor, by putting them in a key Cabinet position. But with Joe Biden, I think that idea could be taken one step further. Here's the dream:
- Joe Biden serves as VP for the first Obama term, and Obama puts his favorite as successor into a high-profile Cabinet position (let's assume Secretary of State, given the importance of foreign affairs, its relationship to national security, etc.). I also like Secretary of State because I think it would work for Biden in the next step...
- For the second Obama term, Biden steps down and switches roles with the Secretary of State from the first Obama term (a position Biden would likely relish), meaning that...
- The Secretary of State from the first Obama term runs as VP in the second Obama term, and becomes Obama's successor in 2016.
The successor gets international (read: security, economic/trade and national defense) experience in the first term, and adds relevant executive experience to their resume in the second term.
I know Obama and Biden could do this mid-term, as well, but the confirmation of the VP requires a majority (simple) of both Houses (25th Amendment), and that might appear a little too "inside"... better, I think, to make the change in an election, so it was ratified by the people.
Now let's see how that would look...
And let's put a real name in there...
I'm not proposing Hillary (although it might not really be so bad), but you get the idea. In fact, I think both Hillary and Biden will be too old to run in 2016, I believe, the torch having been passed and all that. But you get the idea.
So, do you think Obama should or will be contemplating this as he fills his Cabinet? And if you do, who do you think Obama should pick as a possible successor, and which Cabinet position would you put them in?