Today’s NYT carries the thoughtful comments of Garry Wills. New York Times Long known for his insightful critiques of politics, government and religion, Mr. Wills makes the case that Hillary’s election unavoidably creates a plural presidency. When the Constitutional Convention debated whether to have more than a single executive, the prevailing argument was:
One man will be more responsible than three. Three will contend among themselves till one becomes the master of his colleagues. In the triumvirates of Rome, first Caesar, then Augustus, are witnesses of this truth. The kings of Sparta and the consuls of Rome prove also the factious consequences of dividing the executive magistracy.” Wills adds: their argument is as good now as when they embedded it in the Constitution.
After highlighting VP Cheney’s abuses of his office, Wills concludes: at a time when we should be trying to return to the single-executive system the Constitution prescribes, it does not seem to be a good idea to put another co-president in the White House.
…is just damned silly. Spouses help their partners campaign. Hillary helped Bill back in the day and took the most active role in government of any first lady since Eleanor Roosevelt but did he have a “co-president”? No, he didn’t.
<
p>Elizabeth Edwards and Michele Obama are both very intelligent and active on their husband’s behalfs but are they going to be “co-presidents”? No. of course not.
<
p>True that Bill has already been president, but so what. He will be just another important, trusted advisor if Hillary becomes president.
<
p>The issue with Bush isn’t that he decided to have a co-president, it is that he needed one because he was none-too bright and very inexperienced in almost every regard since his entire life up to that point was a gift from his parents.
<
p>Say what you want about Hillary, but stupid and inexperienced are not accurate descriptions of her. Hillary will not have a co-president because she doesn’t need one. This is just another version of silly Clintonphobia. Like or dislike her based on her qualifications and her appeal or lack thereof. Embracing histrionic Clinton paranoia is just weak.
I saw the Wills op-ed this morning, and thought it was quite absurd. It’s a shame when a good scholar like Wills lets his obvious political bias get the better of him. Summoning the Founders to critique the possibility of an ex-president as “First Spouse” is a stretch, to put it mildly.
Because we all know women can’t govern without leaning on the nearest person who owns a pair of testicles.
<
p>The sexism of our media is the greatest threat to a Hillary Clinton presidency.