As you are aware, the tag line for this blog is, “Consider all the possibilities!”  To do that, you have to challenge conventional wisdom or the perceived boundaries imposed on us by law or tradition.  This tenet of critical thinking came to mind as many individuals are starting to wonder whether a President Pence would be any better than the current White House squatter, if and when he is impeached or forced to resign.  This line of inquiry is only relevant if you assume this is the prescribed Constitutional remedy when the nation’s highest office is vacant.  It also assumes any other outcome would be extra-constitutional (e.g. a special election for which there is currently no provision in the founding documents) and a greater threat to our democracy than Pence serving until the 2020 election.

I beg to differ.  In fact, it is a second maxim, “the law of unintended consequences,” which provides the road map for an alternative resolution of our latest national nightmare.  And, I cannot believe I’m saying this, we have Mitch McConnell and the Republican Senate to thank.  For they were the ones who bent the rules to ensure Justice Scalia’s replacement was nominated and confirmed outside the regular order of business.

Consider the following scenario.  The FBI investigation results in criminal charges of treason against several Trump associates.  Comrade Trump, like Richard Nixon during the Watergate prosecutions, is named as an unindicted co-conspirator.  But one thing is clear.  The entire Trump campaign organization was engaged with the Russian government and its operatives.  Even though His Orangeness continues to rail against the media and the judiciary, an overwhelming percentage of Americans recognize neither Trump or Pence deserve to occupy the oval office.

In response, members of the Republican controlled House Judiciary Committee, in an attempt to protect their own political careers, threaten to begin impeachment proceedings if both Trump and Pence do not resign.  Their end game is to elevate House Speaker Paul Ryan to the office of president, something the GOP establishment likely preferred all along.  However, Democratic members of the committee join with the few remaining Trump loyalists to block the impeachment hearings.  The always delusional Trump believes, despite the growing evidence of treasonous activity, he can beat the odds, win re-election in 2020 and refuses to step down.

Here is where Democrats have an opportunity to show  America they actually learned something from the Supreme Court coup perpetrated by McConnell and his Senate colleagues.  Delay until you are in a position to change the outcome.  Yes, the Constitution states the Speaker of the House is third in line for the presidency.  But Paul Ryan fits the bill only if he is still Speaker of the House.  Delay impeachment hearings until after the 2018 mid-term elections when the Democrats have a chance to again become the majority party in the House. Their choice for Speaker then becomes the legitimate successor if Trump and Pence are both forced from office.

Now, I will be the first to admit, if you want to heal a divided country, Nancy Pelosi is probably not the person most people would choose.  Which gives Pelosi and the Democrats a unique opportunity to demonstrate what it truly means to put country before party.  Knowing that the next speaker may soon occupy the White House, the Democrats choose a respected, experienced member of their caucus as Speaker, someone in whom the country will support as a caretaker until the 2020 presidential contest.  Pelosi is then elected majority leader and returns to the Speaker’s chair following the transfer of presidential power to the sitting speaker.

But I’m also not naive.  It would be understandably hard for Pelosi to forego the chance to be the first female president, even if the historical record has an asterisk next to her name.  As in the alternative scenario above, she could present herself as a caretaker by declaring she would not seek election in 2020.  Under the 25th amendment, she could nominate someone for vice-president who would likely become the front runner for the 2020 Democratic nomination.

I know! I know!  It’s hard to imagine all the pieces falling into place under which either of these story lines becomes a reality.  But, I ask you, are they any more unlikely than voters electing a narcissistic, misogynist, pathological lying, con man as president in the first place?

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Democrat.  

Will Rogers

Never was this more true than now as I observe the party’s inability to capitalize on turning public opinion into votes.  Take the legalization of marijuana as an example.  Yesterday, a new CBS News Poll showed that 61 percent of Americans favor legalization.  More (71 percent) believe the federal government should not enforce federal marijuana laws in states where voters have approved medical or recreational use. (NOTE:  It is no coincidence the report was released on April 20 aka “Weed Day,” or as it was called in Colorado, Washington, Connecticut, Maine, Oregon, Nevada, Alaska and California, “Thursday.”)

And where is the Trump administration on this issue? On February 27, 2017, Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions told a meeting of the National Association of State Attorneys General:

States, they can pass the laws they choose.  I would just say, it does remain a violation of federal law to distribute marijuana throughout any place in the United States, whether a state legalizes it or not.

He also took this opportunity to warn of the life-threatening danger of cannabis use, although there were no reported marijuana related deaths in Alabama in 2016.  In contrast, a 2014 Center for Disease Control report attributed 3,190 deaths due to drunk driving between 2003-2012 in Session’s home state.

This is just the most recent example. The same holds true for almost every Trump administration policy: immigration, health care, the border wall, marriage equality, consumer protection, net neutrality and privacy, campaign finance reform and changes to the tax code.  Republican positions do not match public opinion.  Regardless of whether they are successful in a GOP-dominated Congress, Democrats need to be sponsoring  and campaigning on legislative proposals NOW which respond to voters’ sentiments.

In the past, I have written about what I call “Kardashian Politics,” a phenomenon where voters are more interested in personalities than policies.  At the time I thought it explained Donald Trump’s appeal.  But a recent personal experience tells me that is just half the story.

In my other life, I am currently facilitating a visioning exercise for a local non-profit.  As the participants contemplate the organization’s future, it has become clear its success and shortcomings depended more on personalities than structure or procedures.  For example, many of the board members have maintained their positions and roles since the group’s establishment ten years ago.  That only works for so long.

The Republicans are now the party of Trump.  It is yet to be seen how long that will last.  Unfortunately, the Democratic Party is also guilty of “Kardashian Politics.” For a quarter century, the face of the party has been either a Clinton or an Obama.  Instead of asking, “Can Hillary Clinton hold the Obama coalition together?” we should have been asking, “Does the party still represent the people who historically agreed with us?”

I thought about this last night as I watched Jon Ossoff, the Democratic candidate in the Georgia 6th Congressional District special election, being interviewed by Rachel Maddow.  When asked whether it helped that he was seen “as a national bellweather of sentiment for or against the new President,” Ossoff’s reply suggests he gets it.

One of the reasons why the campaign was able to perform as well as it did, I’ve been working on building a coalition around a vision for our local economic development and around shared values that unite people in the community rather than focusing on divisive, nationalized politics.

Which brings me back to Will Rogers. In his syndicated column, which appeared in the Tulsa Daily News on December 5, 1932, Oklahoma’s favorite son opined about Herbert Hoover’s electoral defeat a month earlier.

This election was lost four and five and six years ago not this year. They dident (sic) start thinking of the old common fellow till just as they started out on the election tour. The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would trickle down to the needy. Mr. Hoover was an engineer. He knew that water trickled down. Put it uphill and let it go and it will reach the dryest (sic) little spot. But he dident know that money trickled up. Give it to the people at the bottom and the people at the top will have it before night anyhow. But it will at least have passed through the poor fellow’s hands. They saved the big banks but the little ones went up the flue.

If I, like Will Rogers, dident know better, I would have thought his column appeared on December 5, 2016 and Jon Ossoff was campaigning for FDR in 1932.  DNC chair Tom Perez is hopefully listening to what both are saying.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP