Republicrat

Republicrat (1,198)

July 5th, 2011

I neither favor nor disfavor an old-fashioned idea. I think ideas have only one criterion—do they still work? And when it is proven that an idea is ineffective, it should be put out to pasture with a nice pat on the rump; but if one is still effective, we should smooth out the wrinkles and give Grandma a big kiss on the lips.

That preamble leads me to talk about our political system. I have told you many times that I am apolitical, which gives me the benefit of seeing how the ideas of both parties function in real time with real life.

For instance, I believe that many people were critical of President George Bush for the war in Iraq. I had some misgivings of my own. And even though it could have been handled more efficiently and perhaps in the onset was a bit of a misguided missile, the end result is that Iraq no longer has Saddam Hussein and there is a stirring in the Middle East toward discovering more realms of personal freedom instead of dictatorships or the pursuit of theocracy.

By the same token, I think it is absolutely ridiculous to think that health insurance in this country should be left to the mercy of the private sector, which has too much to gain by making sure that others lose. It’s like releasing the wolf into the hen house, thinking that you’re not going to be smelling fried chicken real soon.

There are things that Republicans do well and things that Democrats do well. Unfortunately, they are never the same and they are rather infrequently tapped for their full potential. So I propose that we go back to an old-fashioned idea: let’s hold an election in this country, get rid of the electoral college, and on the basis of pure popular vote, the first place goes to become President and the second place becomes Vice President. That means in every Presidential election, we would have a President of one party and a Vice-President of another.

Here’s my reasoning: I think it would be much easier to get two people of differing opinions in one room, discussing something and coming to terms, which they would share with their constituency, than it is to get 535 raging politicians from all over the country to agree on anything. (Don’t you think it’s also ironic that we spend so much time teaching our children not to bully one another when the biggest bullies in our country can be found in the leadership?) Then, if a President or Vice-President can sell their agreement to their individual parties after having an elongated tea time of conversation, then we might just be able to grease the wheels enough to move forward. We also would be able to forego some of the lame choices for Vice President made by the parties through cronyism rather than qualification.

This is the way we did it in the early days of our country and because we did, we ended up with George Washington, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson as our first three Presidents—all good choices who might not have been included under our present system. Because first place was President and second place was Vice President.

So if the people were actually able to vote on who they wanted for President, with second place going to create a Vice President, the yang and yang of the procedure might give us the best of the Republicans and the best of the Democrats. Progress will never be achieved by debate in the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Now, if you happen to be a partisan person who favors one of these conglomerates more than another, I’m sure you might find my idea distasteful. But if you’ve grown weary of politics pursuing polls and pundits, you might be willing to go back to a time when an old-fashioned idea opened up the door to conversation which at least had the potential for powerful governing.

Just a thought on this Tuesday morning. Could I live with this particular system? Absolutely—because I am one of those crazy guys who judges politics the same way I do everything else: is it working?