Guest Editorial: Co-Presidency

I know, I know. I just said I would stop writing about the elections. But I got this submission from our occasional contributor, The Resident Historian, and it's really quite interesting.

It was hard to ignore the utterances of ‘co-presidency’ simmering below the surface when Bill Clinton began to supersede his wife’s role in her campaign during the week before the South Carolina primary. This term was indeed used pejoratively, but it seems surprising that it has even resurfaced into our political lexicon at all. The only other time in American history that the thought of a co-presidency held so prominent a role in the collective conscious was when Gerald Ford used it as a pre-condition for joining Reagan’s 1980 ticket. Ford’s assertive demand that he would only run as Vice President if the two could share executive power equally was swiftly brushed aside in a quasi-emasculating withdrawal of the invitation to the ticket. Reagan’s move was clearly justified, considering that the freshly-defeated Ford had no teeth at that point to back up his claim to half of the Oval Office.
But as the Democratic electorate continues to split relatively evenly in these primaries, as party leaders balk at the idea of having the unpopular superdelegates decide the contest, and as the delegate count reveals little hope of a clear resolution in the near future, the idea of a co-presidency may actually have some merit in this electoral season.
Let us indulge the speculation sweet-tooth for the moment and analyze the makeup of this year’s Democratic Party dynamic. Large turnout in early primaries, coupled with continuing disillusionment with the governing establishment, raises hopes for the Democrats’ chances of electoral success this year. Large upswings in minority, youth, and working class participation are good indicators that the party has on its hands a unique chance to redefine itself. And of course, there are the candidates, who together represent the most fundamental change to the actual identity of the Democratic Party. The last time there was this zenith of opportunity was 1932.
Approaches to practice and character being the only definitive differences between the Senators Obama and Clinton, it would seem that the two in joint rule might actually be able to most effectively implement their platforms. For evidence, consider John Tyler’s Administration, effectively supervised by the Secretaries of State, Treasury, and War. Not the most memorable administration, yes, but despite having a politically crippled executive, the collective body was able to just as easy administer the Whig platform.
If agreed upon now, the Democratic Party would have to overhaul any and all plans for the General Election to accommodate this radical change, but it would also mobilize the party, not only early enough to start seriously challenging the GOP, but also to an extent unparalleled in American history. The current satisfaction rates for the two candidates among the party electorate is exceedingly high (ranging between about 70-75%). A Double-Ticket might truly make use out of this energy. It would also catch the GOP completely off guard, as a joint ticket has never before been even tepidly considered.
Yet, there remains the question of executive deadlock, which would be all too easy a prey for the Republicans. What if the co-presidents disagree on, as is most likely, healthcare? The obvious solution would be to add a third candidate. Al Gore has expressed interest in mediating the two candidates before the convention. Perhaps he could mediate their policies as a tri-president. Or, considering Gore’s reluctance to lift a political finger, how about Howard Dean? Both men are top Democratic officials who are highly respected and represent the biggest challenge to traditional Democratic electoral politics. And that kind of change is exactly what is needed to capitalize upon this election.
Another obvious potential critique is that this kind of executive front-loading could result in some kind of Authoritarian Presidential Triumvirate. But again, history shows the rebuttal. As mentioned previous, this year has the potential to be a repeat of the fundamental change that redefined the Democratic Party, and realigned the nation. In 1932, similar charges were levied against FDR for the executive centralization implemented by the New Deal. But FDR’s programs have become the major staple to modern American infrastructure and the Democratic platform. This kind of popular executive action will be the key to Democratic success in November, as highlighted by the current policy disputes between Clinton and Obama.
The only other major argument against the idea is that a multi-body executive branch would decrease the uniform singularity with which that arm of the government works. This is true, but in such a case, the legislative branch, properly redefined, would easily take the governing lead. Parliamentary systems such as Italy or India, for example, may have counter-effective political cultures, but their actual system of legislative action and enforcement is not much less productive than our own. That is not to suggest that Steny Hoyer should become the first Prime Minister of America, but a greater capability to Congress would not be unwelcome by this author.
The idea of a co-presidency or tri-presidency is currently unimaginable, unlikely, and somewhat laughable, and I certainly hope that this nomination is resolved before such an idea becomes tangible. But in this election of boundary-breakers and record-thumpers, one cannot rule out even the most far-fetched of strategies. And in this crazy race, such strategies may even become necessary. Ford thought so.
-The Resident Historian