*
Eluding me where? Hiding in plain sight, as usual. What has eluded me? Democrat "succession planning" if President Obama were in fact experiencing the sort of collapse that a decent but naive man might suffer if he were psychologically unsuited to wield brutal, overwhelming power in the manner a U.S. President must deploy it.If the President were in fact melting down, and if he did indeed want out, then we can assume that top Democrat leadership is well aware of it. Assuming that said leadership is not directly involved in a conspiracy to hand over the nation's full executive, legislative, and judicial authority to the Republican Party, then they will probably want to hang onto the White House into 2012.
Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution specifies that "In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President...." This portion of Article 2 has been modified and extended by the 20th and 25th Amendments, but the fundamental succession remains the same as it was in 1790.
If the President resigned owing to his inability to execute his duties, it would be unprecedented. But this has been a decade of unprecedented developments in our humble democratic republic. I'm sure you can think of as many as I could list here. Putting aside the personal humiliation that might go with a historic abdication, I can easily believe that an introspective, spiritual family man would at some point readily submit to this humiliation in return for the opportunity to salvage his soul and his life.
Were that to occur, the successor would be a veteran Democrat insider who may even be capable of rising to the occasion. And his successor to the vice presidency? That would depend on his own ambitions. But it could be either of two alpha females: Hillary, if Biden wants to retire or revert to the vice presidency; Pelosi, if he wishes to try on the office for a full 4 years. And in case it isn't obvious, all of this speculation falls into the category of thinking outside of the conventional wisdom; it amounts to guessing, not prediction. And I should also be clear that none of this speculation represents wishful thinking on my part.
OK, spit balling, just to see who'll salute the spaghetti sticking to the ceiling:
ReplyDeleteFourth Party Name: The No Bullshit Party, or, United Strength in Numbers Party
Theme: Truth, Transparency, Sustainability
Pres Candidate: Julien Assange
(hey, if Eugene Debs can run for office from prison...)
VP: Steve Jobs
Issues: net neutrality, e-mail voting, pluralistic participatory democracy (and community), true 4G for everyone, fighting for democracy to NOT equate to money, etc.
Oswald Spengler
Oswald: I've been nursing along some thoughts about a viable new party, and other readers have some interest in the concept. This much I can say now: I believe that a new party (not "third" since the U.S. already has a third, fourth, and arguably even a fifth party) won't be viable unless it's grounded in the present and the future (no arch references to historic movements); driven solely by the ideals of open and representative government, validated data and facts, logic, and rhetoric based only those three things. Tall order; too idealistic for reality, but maybe they could get into the ballpark at least. Also, the party must concentrate on organizing effectively, not necessarily rapidly, and avoid the cult of personality---especially losers from one of the two mainstream parties. I'm thinking in terms of the fundamentals of American constitutional democracy, plus an unambiguous mission and starting with issues that affect ordinary people every day.
ReplyDelete