2008 Redeemed
How the public can correct the mishandling of the financial crisis
Progress comes from refusing binary choices. Let’s not repeat the mistake in handling the 2008 financial crisis in the 2016 election.
In 2008, the false choice presented was turn on the monetary printing presses or face utter financial collapse. There was a third way — repackaging and repricing the assets — but that was dismissed as requiring too much work and too much thought by too many people to be “realistic.” In retrospect, doing so would have accelerated the recovery, averted the debt explosion, and mitigated increases an income equality.
In 2016, the false choice presented is between Trump and Clinton. The third way — electing two successful GOP governors who won strong Democratic support in Democratic states while being fiscal conservatives who support personal freedom — is also called “unrealistic.” People are too set in their ways to vote for someone besides a Democrat or a Republican. The difference in this case is that the decision is not being made by a handful of officials in Washington and New York meeting rooms, but by 300 million Americans.
Is it really unrealistic that a plurality of voters — 34% or 40% or even 60% — in states worth 270 electoral votes would opt for a happy, successful, honest, experienced team of governors on all 50 state ballots over the two least popular presidential candidates in history? We have 12 weeks to find out. It would be a shame to look back in eight more years and realize that 300 million Americans made the same mistake as a handful of officials in Washington and New York meeting rooms.
Right now, the outcome depends on what 5,000 or 7,500 people say in response to random telephone polls conducted over the next few weeks. Will enough support Johnson-Weld to get them into the debates? Those polls undercount the sort of modern millennial voters who most closely align with Johnson-Weld on fiscal and social issues and who will be much more likely to vote if they believe such a ticket could win. In a classic catch-22, pollsters try to poll “likely” voters, but if the choice is Trump-Clinton, how many young people living in social media are likely even to vote? On the other hand, if they knew they could be a part of upsetting the two-party system they have come to detest the past decade or so, their likelihood of voting grows exponentially. So older people who still answer the phone are going to need to disproportionately voice support for Johnson-Weld if they are to get into the debates.
That’s where the efforts of people with faith and optimism for America’s future should be directed now. If a pollster insists on a choice between Trump and Clinton, say “Johnson.” If the pollster comes back again with the same binary choice, say “read my lips: Johnson.” (Older likely voters will remember that line.) There is a way out of this box. We should at least try to take it.
