Will Hillary Clinton Be Obama’s Great Compromise?
“The Great Compromise” refers to the Connecticut Compromise, reached during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787. At the time, the Founding Fathers were bitterly divided over the legislative structure of their proposed government. How would the United States Congress be composed? Half of the convention demanded proportional representation—each state should receive a number of representatives based upon its population, they argued. The other half, generally from the smaller states, worried that more densely populated regions would come to dominate America under such a plan; they argued that each state should be alloted one representative, regardless of population.
The bitterness of this division threatened the future of government in the new states. The convention seemed at in impasse. Was anyone willing to stand on middle ground? We know the outcome, of course. The Great Compromise gave us the House and Senate, in essence suggesting both forms of legislature as the best alternative. The basic structure of our Congress hasn’t changed since then, so we tend to forget its precarious birth. But James Madison, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, wrote that it was impossible “to consider the degree of concord which ultimately prevailed as less than a miracle.” To the astonishment of many, the prospect of successful government had been restored. Even so, the Great Compromise passed by a single vote, 5-4.
Democracy must be rife with ugly, seemingly insurmountable divisions. If we let people think for themselves, we have to suffer the consequences: vitriolic, divisive, biting rivalries that often feel like threats to the very democracies intended to protect them. The greatness of America—of any democracy, really—lies in its ability to foster compromise. We didn’t survive this long with a bunch of stubborn idealists at the helm. We survived because our leaders, time and again, were willing to accept concession (with one awesome exception: the Civil War). The Constitution may seem like a sacred and perfect document to us now, but surely each one of our Founding Fathers felt disappointed by it in some way.
You would think, after 200 years, we wouldn’t be so freaked out by our current political terrain. On the other hand, we have good reason to be freaked out: the administration of George W. Bush has dismissed compromise at every turn. Both internationally (see Bush Doctrine) and domestically (see, well, everything), Bush insisted on far-right conservatism, roundly dismissing all opportunities to court Democratic leaders and voters alike. This is Bush’s legacy: the go-it-alone strategy. It may have failed him eventually, but no doubt future leaders—of both parties—will be inspired by his many early successes. In taking our government by the reins so effectively, Bush has weakened the standing of compromise.
Over and over again, Barack Obama has promised to get it back. It’s a wonderful message, his message of conciliation and progress. I love it as much as the next guy. But the true test of his willingness to compromise cannot come in a speech. For quite a while Hillary supporters have asked the obvious question: if he’s so good at bringing the country together, why can’t he unite the Democratic Party? It’s a perfectly fair question, and Obama hasn’t given us an adequate answer. I don’t want to wait until November to get one.
Barack Obama should appoint Hillary Clinton as his running mate. [… must… … stop… … typing… …] I’m not a fan of Clinton, believe me. She’s resorted to racism in this election more times than I can remember. I’ve come to find her husband impossibly annoying—and the Clintons are like potato chips: you can’t have just one. Both of them seem hellbent on power at any cost. At this point Hillary may be gunning for Obama’s defeat, pinning her hopes on the race in 2012. Finally, I don’t think she’d do our country any good. She’s more of the same. With all the donations pouring into Bill’s library—and into Hillary’s desperate campaign—who and what do they owe? In short, Hillary spells trouble.
The problem is, nearly half of my party disagrees with me. I can belittle these voters, much like Hillary and Bill have attempted to belittle Barack’s supporters. But why resort to those tactics? Why not respect their opinions—and their votes? I can tell myself, “these voters will come around to Barack; a vote for Hillary in the primaries doesn’t translate to a vote for McCain in the general.” Fair enough. But why, then, have so many people continued to support Hillary in light of Barack’s imminent victory? His inability to woo these voters so late in the game—after it’s won, really—should trouble Obama and his campaign staff. Lastly, I can hope for a decent alternative; perhaps Obama can nominate someone like John Edwards or Bill Richardson to take Hillary’s place, to shore up support among Latinos and “white, hard-working” Americans. But, think what you may of Hillary, no man (or woman) can fill her shoes. Maybe Obama doesn’t need Hillary to win; maybe he can get to the White House with a lesser alternative. Maybe—but why take that chance when so many Democrats and Independents have made their support for Hillary so clear?
If Obama is the man he claims to be, he’ll bite the bullet and accept his party’s declaration: it wants Hillary, too. No doubt a unity ticket has its downsides. Even as Vice President, the Clintons will continue to see Barack as an obstacle. Hillary will look to Dick Cheney, not Al Gore, as the model VP. If she’s successful, like Cheney she’ll have her own executive wing with its own administration—sometimes at odds with her boss’. Yes, Hillary will be guaranteed the nomination in 2016, but she’ll be sixty-eight at that point. Instead, she could continue her campaign against Obama even while serving under him (albeit more subtly); and she’ll be in an excellent position to undermine his authority, making him seem less in command. If Americans suffer during the first three years of his presidency—for whatever reason—Hillary may attempt to steal the nomination in 2012. For Bill and Hillary, it’s all a horse race. But these actions could have grave consequences for the average American. If you believe this country needs change, Hillary Clinton will be happy to give that to you—in four or eight years time. Remember, though: if she does derail Obama’s presidency, the Dems stand a much higher chance of losing the White House in 2012 and beyond.
It’s a frightening scenario, but Clinton doesn’t need the VP slot to do this kind of damage. As a leader of the senate, she could be just as effective in curtailing Obama’s plans—even more so perhaps. Obama may be better off following the advice of Michael Corleone (or was it Sun Tzu?): “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.” Hillary may try to defy him, but what if Obama announced—unbeknownst to her—that he had chosen Hillary to lead his National Healthcare Task Force. She couldn’t possibly refuse; suddenly her hands would be full. And if the initiative failed, Obama would have the perfect scapegoat. As his running mate, could Hillary derail Obama’s campaign before November? Quite possibly, but again Hillary may be in a tougher position to do so inside the campaign. Hillary is doing plenty of damage already. Obama would be wise to take her in.
Barring a disaster on par with 9/11, the most difficult challenge to Obama’s visionary leadership may be, of all things, the Clintons. This seems perverse at first, but really why shouldn’t it be so? As Harry Truman said, “If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.” The Clintons represent the worst of politics but the majority of politicians. They’re not different; they’re just better. In order to accomplish his goals, Barack Obama will need to find a way to channel the energies of those below him. If he can conquer Bill and Hillary, he’ll be well on his way. If he can’t, I doubt the world will look much different when he’s through.
3 years ago • Notes