In the primaries leading to the 2008 presidential election, I broke ranks with the Republican Party and endorsed Barack Obama for president. He represented then, and still represents now, the best of the American spirit and character. He was not given an opportunity to fulfill the "audacious hopes" he envisioned for America. Nevertheless, the Obama presidency will always rank highly in historic significance for the meritorious manner in which the racial barrier was finally breached. A president of any color who could band-aid the serious economic dislocation of 2007-08 that Barack Obama inherited from George W. Bush outweighs, in itself, the failings that are objectively at least shared with a Republican dominated Congress specializing in obstruction.
The Obama presidency is fast drawing to a close. Unfortunately, no suitable replacement has been found. From my time in the State Department, I know Mrs. Clinton to be a capable administrator, a demanding and strong leader, and a person not to be messed with. I also know her, at times, to be overly reliant upon a think alike set of advisers to her own disadvantage. Frankly, she often is the smartest person in the room and it would be better to have ideas more frequently tested from different points of view. She can also appear, but not really be, unfeeling. That is not to say her political opposition don't deserve double-barreled criticism; it's that both barrels are always at the ready making her appear less approach-able than she is. One thing for certain: she is both gifted and an overachiever who is too hard on herself.
I do not know Mr. Trump, but I like his spunk even if he makes "fighting words" looking like constructive criticism. Mr. Trump seems to be oblivious to how words can either build friendship or stoke long-lasting enmity. This is not a good trait in a tinder box world, no matter how amusing it may seem on a reality show. Yet, Donald Trump is a man of many faces; literally multi-polar. One would think him hopeless, except that those who know him well say that he is a good listener and a person of true and capable judgment. That is, many judgments on the same issue all at once. I have this problem with some restaurant menus, but its a handicap in public decision-making. But be honest, we can't get enough of his antics. One of the dishonest things about criticism of Trump ad his unorthodox campaign is we cannot wait to tune into the next episode. If we were sure Mrs. Clinton would actually win and the annoying Ted Cruz wasn't buzzing around looking for disloyal delegates trying to steal Donald's opportunity to make history being defeated by the first woman president, even Mrs. Clinton, I bet, would sit back, kick off her shoes and enjoy the fun.
But then, there are reasons that are far from hypocritical explaining why the average American finds satisfaction in Donald's rambling, narcissistic rants or Bernie's targeted criticism of Mrs. Clinton for being too cozy with Wall Street
The average American understands without ponderous macroeconomic analysis how globalization has changed the atmospheric as well as political and economic climates. But they are rightly put off when their needs get less attention than completion of a one-sided Iranian deal or a Justice Department that is slow to enforce the securities and antitrust laws that if effectively administered would hold corporate leadership personally accountable when they price fix their way to profitability and obscene bonus and salary payments hidden from tax.
My neighbors believe, as do I, in America's essential goodness, but we also believe in not being played for a chump. Internationally, it is dispiriting to have one's nation always apologizing for holding onto some rather obvious beliefs that are true at home or abroad: one such belief, and one that Mr. Trump has nicely argued, is that those who defend others at enormous sacrifice ought be admired and rewarded; that trade pacts ought to fairly account for who is paying a family wage and who isn't; that all of us are called to help those less fortunate not only because we may someday be less fortunate ourselves, but because it is right; that genuine charity is a matter of love not coercion.
Americans believe governments must observe a rule of law at home and promote trade, not war, abroad. We also aspire to equality and fairness -- matters way past due for women -- but not out of some campaign-stoked vengeful assumption that men have been caught conspiring for female oppression. Trump's criticism of the "women's card" is hokum; Hillary should treat it as such, focusing instead upon recognition that the 21st century has definitively revealed that quality of mind and talent is not gender based.
The Supreme Court deserves our respect when it honors the Constitution, but not when it finds it easier to fabricate gun and corporate rights than to respect life and democracy. It is understandable for American grown-ups who actually perform the work they promise to do, to tire of hearing about the importance of respect for law, when the leadership of the Senate is content to sacrifice it for political advantage. Donald Trump is fond of exaggerating that Mrs. Clinton did something unlawful with her State Department emails; yet, he has not had the courage to challenge his party's disregard of their constitutional oath to assess the qualities of Merrick Garland. And the emails? There is a problem in how classified materials get handled with unsecure systems including some in the Department of State, itself, but it is department wide, as Steven Lee Meyers has carefully outlined in The New York Times, and I would be surprised if Hillary will come to grief for exposing it.
Americans respect each other's religious beliefs, but expect that respect to be mutual, or at least non-violent, including the violence entailed in laws that smugly criminalize or make believers into outlaws to be mocked or derided. Rushing to codify into law one side of the cultural divide yields division not understanding. And speaking of understanding, Americans are deeply frustrated with the mindless continuation of yesterday's education systems that are passed off onto our children and that are too expensive and too inflexible. Education can't be just about staying in the seat or teaching to a test; today's jobs require that classrooms allow students of any age to go in and out as needed to refresh and reinvent and reconfigure so that present-day skills match the indefatigable American spirit.
A few years ago as I left my diplomatic post, a foreign reporter asked if I would ever contemplate working for Mrs. Clinton again. I like Mrs. Clinton. Clinton, though I chose to resign a tad early from an ambassadorship when for reasons unclear, the bureaucracy was dialing back on the president's diplomacy of inter-faith understanding, I had hoped that the early offer to return home would prompt corrective steps to save the initiative from the bureaucrats -- you know the people who always color inside the box, even when the color is more needed elsewhere. In any case, I answered the reporter that "of course I would be happy to be the lowliest foot soldier or her vice president."
Mrs. Clinton's short list for VP is getting shorter, so I suppose I need to content myself with foot soldier. That's all right, but it understates what I have come to learn of the vice presidency and its proper or intended use that turns out to have great present-day utility.
Both candidates need to assess the constitutional dysfunction that we have witnessed over the past eight years. Much of that paralysis resulted from unseemly and unwanted visceral dislike and political opposition to the presidency of Barack Obama. But there is more afoot. Our founders separated power to prevent power's abuse not to render the country ineffective and unprepared to act. By contrast, parliamentary democracies build their executive departments directly from the legislative chamber and so there is a unity of purpose and a far greater chance that any nostrums that are laid before the voter as being capable of curing one public malady or another will have an opportunity to do so.
Recently, I hosted with the Pepperdine Law Review a symposium on the vice presidency, an office that on the face of the constitution seemingly has little purpose beyond, as Will Rogers famously said, "getting up in the morning and inquiring 'how is the president doing?'" Some, like former VP Richard Cheney at the symposium, believed the vice presidential office was merely an afterthought.
Cheney's aggressive use of the office to involve himself deeply into executive matters, most especially Iraq, seems to belie that characterization, but put past personalities and decisions aside, our efforts at promoting a workable government is what concerns us now. One thing we do know, a vice-president who disregards presidential direction, cannot be formally dismissed by the president -- a fact that in itself transforms the vice presidency into a position of power far in excess of any member of the president's cabinet.
VPs can be impeached, but none have been. Rightly deployed, this vice presidential authority can be used to check the destructive ambitions of legislative and executive officers who work against finding common ground.
Those interested in learning more from the symposium can see a part on CSPAN and the remainder on the Pepperdine University Law School website. My point in raising it here is that the framers did very few things without consequence and study and they deliberately chose to make the vice president, at least until the moment of succession, not an executive officer, as Mr. Cheney chose to play it, but a legislative one capable of casting a tie-breaking vote when the Senate of the United States is evenly divided -- presumably over the most contentious issues that would otherwise paralyze government into inaction.
Now I'm not saying the vice presidency has the capacity to cure the near decade old presidential-congressional impasse; more will be needed, including constitutional objections to retaining a seat in Congress while concurrently serving the president. That's a real problem, but there is no reason not to encourage presidents from convincing legislators to yield legislative position to accept an opportunity to execute the law -- that is, actually make things work. Both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump are the problem solving type, so perhaps, despite its coarseness, the primaries may have given us presidential choices well directed to the practical. In either case, we ought not to overlook the importance of utilizing what the late Justice Scalia recognized when he served in the Justice Department : namely that an independently minded vice president can by holding out the tie-breaker to both sides can integrate opposing sides more directly than any other office.
If we could be assured that Hillary's or Donald's vice presidential vetting was inquiring into this understanding, and parallel changes in House and Senate rules to facilitate enactment of the next president's legislative program, we might then have someone truly worthy of endorsement.
And, of course, I wouldn't mind a promotion beyond foot soldier, too. But there is someone else who is just perfect for vice president; a guy who can make good deals, who is unquestionably anxious to make America great again. In the original constitution, the vice president was the second-highest vote getter and it didn't matter if the runner-up was of a differ party or philosophy. Lincoln was advantaged, we are told, from having surrounded himself with a "team of rivals." I say Hillary needs a ticket with one: that's right, Donald J. Trump for vice president. If that can work, Israel and Palestine is child's play. There's the one small "one heartbeat away" worry, but Mrs. Clinton is healthy enough, so there you have it: the dream ticket: Clinton-Trump. I say we make it by acclimation, skip the general, and get down to work -- now wouldn't that really make America great?'