The University of Arkansas' Bob Maranto recently published an insightful op-ed in the Washington Examiner under the headline "Impeach the winner!"
The theme was, of course, the unique unpopularity of this year's major party presidential nominees, and thus the awful dilemma facing us as voters in November. As Maranto noted, if the presidency were a civil-service position, "why not just re-post the wanted ad to recruit more and better applicants from a broader pool?"
We don't, alas, have that option, but the thought intrigues nonetheless--impeachment as a mechanism for correcting the errors committed by the electorate (or, in this case, that small percentage of the electorate that voted for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton in the primaries, and thereby stuck the rest of us, the overwhelming majority, with the distasteful chore of having to choose between them).
Maranto was joking (I think, mostly), but we probably shouldn't entirely dismiss the chances of it happening.
For my part, I find it highly unlikely that Trump wouldn't be impeached, even by a Republican Congress, within six months or so of assuming the presidency; perhaps as a necessary act of communal hygiene. The articles of impeachment would probably include several pages of charges.
Removing Hillary would be far more difficult--the Clintons are unrivaled at navigating scandals that would destroy other politicians and would shamelessly exploit any jitters congressional Republicans might have about ousting the first female president. They obviously also have a certain experience handling the impeachment thing.
All that said, wouldn't the vast majority of voters, perhaps even a majority of Democrats, prefer the Democratic nominee for vice president, Tim Kaine, to Hillary? And wouldn't the vast majority of voters, including a majority of Republicans, rather see Mike Pence in the oval office rather than Trump?
Normal folks tend, after all, to prefer normal candidates to congenital liars and wingnuts.
Maranto's piece also directed our attention to another peculiarity of 2016--that the two most qualified candidates, in terms of both accomplishments and temperament, aren't on the Republican or Democratic tickets but instead the Libertarian.
The Libertarian Party nominee, Gary Johnson, was a superb Republican governor of a Democratic-leaning state (New Mexico). As Maranto notes, he is "a likeable self-made millionaire, a real capitalist rather than the crony variety" who "cut taxes, improved services, and balanced the budget." He also "was never nearly indicted" and "knows he's running to be the American president, not Cuban caudillo."
Johnson's running mate, William Weld, was also a successful Republican governor of a Democratic state (Massachusetts) who won re-election in 1994 by the largest margin in that state's history. Like Johnson, he fits the fiscally conservative/socially liberal profile that probably corresponds most closely to that large chunk of Americans who are neither rabid Democrats nor Republicans, and consequently most aghast at what has been so rudely forced upon us.
How strange, then--that a fringe party usually viewed as a refuge for cranks and misfits has fielded a ticket superior in credentials to those on the Democratic and Republican sides; the strongest third-party ticket since at least Teddy Roosevelt and the Bull Moose in a year when more Americans than ever are looking for an alternative.
The rub, of course, comes in convincing lots of people that a vote for Johnson-Weld wouldn't, as is so often the case, be a wasted vote, or even worse (here's looking at you, Ralph Nader voters in Florida in 2000).
The very awfulness of our choices this year also works, in rather counterintuitive fashion, against Johnson-Weld, as evidence suggests that the primary reason people hold their noses and support Trump is to stop Hillary, and that the primary reason people hold their noses and support Hillary is to stop Trump.
The idea that the survival of the republic might be jeopardized if the "wrong" candidate wins has placed us in a classic "prisoner's dilemma" in which most votes will be cast based on worst-case scenarios, to prevent feared catastrophe rather than achieve good things.
Johnson would have to clear the 15 percent hurdle in the polls for inclusion in the presidential debates, but if he could somehow make it onto those stages, there might be a palpable sense of relief among voters at having a reasonable alternative to Hillary and Trump or simply staying home on Nov. 8.
Johnson's candidacy might take off, at least to the extent of allowing him to win a few ideologically congenial states--his own New Mexico perhaps? Maybe Colorado, Oregon or Washington?
The assumption at this juncture is that the only way to stop Trump is to vote Hillary and the only way to stop Hillary is to vote Trump, but if Johnson can carry a few such states it might be just enough to deny both the necessary 270 electoral votes and thereby throw the outcome into the House of Representatives.
As strange as it might sound, our only hope for avoiding both Trump and Hillary, barring the radical step of impeaching the winner, might be the goofy Libertarians.
So who would House Republicans opt for in that scenario--the Republican imposter who is nonetheless the Republican nominee (Trump), or a real Republican who is the Libertarian nominee (Johnson)?
------------v------------
Freelance columnist Bradley R. Gitz, who lives and teaches in Batesville, received his Ph.D. in political science from the University of Illinois.
Editorial on 08/15/2016