The list and who’s off it — first cut

0

I don’t for a second doubt that any of the 22 candidates currently running for President — 17 Republicans and five Democrats — could run the country if they happened to get elected. This isn’t because they are political geniuses. It’s because the genius of the Constitution is that it created a government that doesn’t need a genius to run it.

But with 22 candidates to choose from what’s a voter to do?

Well one way to narrow the field is to go through the list and decide which candidates you would seriously consider supporting — the ones who are “on the list” for you — and which ones are off it. At this stage, it’s easier to decide who’s off the list than who’s on it.

The first five candidates who are “off the list” for me are Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton, Martin O’Malley, Chris Christie and Marco Rubio. Here’s why.

Bush and Clinton are off the list for reasons that have nothing to do with their stands on the issues, their temperament or the content of their characters.

If elected, Bush would probably govern from center-right and Clinton from center-left, which would drive the activists in their respective parties crazy, but which, judging by past experience, most Americans can live with most of the time.

But that’s beside the point. The reason they’re off the list is that the American Presidency is neither a hereditary office nor a family business, and the only way to keep it from turning into one is to quit voting for candidates who, by virtue of birth or marriage, are political royalists whose election would perpetuate American dynasties.

Why does this matter? Because the more dynastic American politics become, the less committed the American people become to both the American political process and the government it produces. This isn’t a withdrawal of the consent of the governed (which can lead to revolution). It’s the loss of interest and alienation of the governed — and that can be pretty corrosive in its own right.

But America is supposed to be about judging people on their ideas, values, accomplishments and characters, not their ancestry and family. So isn’t this horribly unfair to Jeb and Hillary? You betcha, but it can’t be helped.

There is no structural fix for American dynastic politics. The only way to end the dynasties, or to prevent new ones from emerging, is for the voters to say no to them — even if it means saying no to qualified people. So Jeb and Hillary are off the list.

The third candidate that’s off the list is Martin O’Malley, the former governor of Maryland. He’s off the list because when Black Lives Matter activists boorishly seized the microphone from him at the leftist Netroots Nation conference and demanded to know if he thought Black lives mattered, he told them that he thought all lives mattered — and then issued a groveling apology because it offended both the activists and a lot of the conference goers. Just the kind of guy you want negotiating with Putin, Khamenei, Kim Jongun or Al Sharpton.

O’Malley is off the list for pandering, cowardice and, above all, political decadence. If you have to apologize for saying “all lives matter” and apologize to a roomful of racist grievance mongers and blame America firsters at that, you’re not only unfit to be President but you are kind of a flop as a human being. Taking O’Malley’s off the list is a nobrainer.

Then there’s Christie and Rubio. I genuinely like both of them. Christie is as plain-spoken as Harry Truman, and there is a lot of Truman’s common sense in what he says. Rubio is one of the two or three most articulate and passionate candidates in the Republican pack; he has a compelling personal narrative and, like Christie, a solid record of accomplishment in state politics (he was Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives before becoming a Senator).

The reason Christie and Rubio are off the list is they want to re-criminalize marijuana and re-start the war on drugs.

“If you’re getting high in Colorado today, enjoy it,” Christie says. “As of January 2017, I will enforce the federal laws.”

Since 1965, over 20 million Americans have been arrested for marijuana offenses; over 80 percent of them for simple possession. Over 10 million of those arrests have occurred since the year 2000.

The war on drugs generally, and the war on marijuana in particular, has done more to introduce tyranny into American life than anything in more than a century. It has cost American taxpayers well over $1 trillion and prolonged the second class citizenship of millions of Black Americans by saddling them with criminal records for a “crime” that is no more serious than drinking beer.

Some would say dumping a candidate over his stand on marijuana is single issue voting, but it isn’t. Christie and Rubio’s stand on pot defines their stands on a) civil liber ties, b) states’ rights, c) the civil rights of Black Americans, d) the prudent handling of the public purse, e) the priorities and conduct of American foreign policy toward Mexico and Latin America generally, and f ) their willingness to get rid of waste, fraud and abuse and dysfunctional government programs and agencies. In light of their stands on marijuana and the drug war, you can’t take anything they say on these issues at face value.

Christie and Rubio’s re-criminalization stands to make a mockery of the Republican Party’s claims to be the party of personal liberty and small government. They’re off the list.

This opinion column does not necessarily reflect the views of Boulder Weekly.