Don’t confuse the good intentions of Tom Friedman with an idea that makes sense.
Ed Kilgore:
Assuming AE is unlikely to just call the whole thing off, I’d suggest they cut to the chase and nominate their most prominent backer, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, as the nominee. Under AE’s elaborate rules, he’d presumably have to disclose a party affiliation and then choose a running-mate from a different party. But he could certainly self-identify as a member of the Friedman Party, and then choose a running-mate from the Party of Richard Cohen or the Party of Robert Samuelson or the Party of David Brooks. It would be a Very Serious Ticket.
Ross Douthat:
[D]isaffected Americans have very good reasons to be suspicious when their elites promotes bipartisanship as an end unto itself. The 2003 invasion of Iraq was approved with significant bipartisan support, after all. The policies that inflated the housing bubble were bipartisan as well – and so was the hated Wall Street bailout that the bubble’s consequences required. Even America’s deficits are a monument to bipartisanship: to the many Republicans who have defended and expanded entitlements created by Democrats and to the many Democrats who have gone along with Republicans and ruled middle-class tax increases out of bounds.
Why, then, would Americans fed up with the two party system entrust their loyalties to a nascent movement that promises that this time, this time, a high-minded, bipartisan elite will get things right?
I wouldn't completely count out Americans Elect. Any party on the ballot in 26 states has the potential for some kind of mischief, intentional or otherwise. But yes, this was an
easily predicted failure.
No comments:
Post a Comment