A small, but very symbolic commitment to bipartisan "inclusion" that would be easy to offer and easy to keep...

So, it's almost over.  The longest and most entertaining U.S. presidential contest since the days when electors rode hundreds of miles on mule-back to deliberate in a muddy District of Columbia still marked by L'Enfant's surveyor pegs.  Of course, beyond entertaining, it’s also been polarizing, numbing and frustrating to anyone who dreams of a pragmatic, problem-solving civilization.  (Wasn’t that our reputation, once upon a time?)  

Can anyone doubt that, this time, there won’t be tens of millions stewing in outright rage, whichever side wins?  Making governing next to impossible?

Bear with me, because I plan to offer an unconventional suggestion.  One that would cost a candidate -- say Barack Obama -- almost nothing, offer clear political advantages,  yet transform American politics in both symbolic and important ways.

First though, amid rising cynicism and a steadily worsening culture war, can we look back to the beginning of our republic, and find a lesson or two?  Perhaps something from the founders, to help us Cope?

Alas, back then – even during the “era of good feeling” – things were scarcely any better. A bawdy, partisan press and sharp geographic divisions helped to exaggerate, rather than soften our differences, leading eventually to civil war.  Today, whichever side you choose comes drenched in self-righteousness and reciprocal demonization.

Nor do elections calm any tempers. Not when one side claims – as President George W. Bush did -- a “mandate” to autarchic rule, based on margins smaller than statistical error. This time, whoever wins, the losers will surely cry foul, clench their teeth and dig in, leaving us gridlocked in rancor, ungovernable.

That is, unless strong efforts are made to mollify those who feel they were robbed.  Both major candidates have promised a new spirit of bipartisanship, but who really believes such vows, anymore? A few cabinet posts, offered to compatible members of the other party, won’t suffice this time.

Let’s go back to that word. Mandate.  Consider Ronald Reagan’s “landslide” victory over Walter Mondale in 1984, or Lyndon Johnson over Barry Goldwater in 1964.  If your candidate wins by a 60/40 vote margin, you can legitimately call it a ringing victory. But it still means that four in ten voting citizens did not want you in office.  To that forty percent, the word “mandate” translates as --  “drop dead!”

All the more so, after a close electoral contest.  Even assuming that Al Gore had come ahead in the Florida recounts, back in 2000, eking electoral victory to accompany his popular vote win – (and putting aside third-party votes) - can 50.1 percent legitimately over-rule the wishes of 49.9 percent who disagreed?

Majority rule used to be tempered in the legislative branch.  Congress seldom passes a law supported by just 51% of the people, while vigorously opposed by nearly half.  The power of opposing groups comes from by multiplying their numbers by their fervor. Small but intense lobbies may effectively veto measures desired only tepidly by much greater majorities.  During normal times, this “minority veto” power is eased by negotiation and tradeoffs, though not when culture war spurs rigid obstinacy.

The logic is different in the executive branch.  We don’t have European-style coalition governments. Instead, for better or worse, a president appoints loyal officers and operates largely without interference from within.  Yes, it can be disturbing to witness our top elected official become insulated, with all access to the inner sanctum controlled by an ideologically-driven staff.  George Washington understood the temptations of human nature, which can transform well-meaning leaders into lonely monarchs, broody, isolated, paranoid.  An inquiring press can help moderate this trend, as do Constitutional checks and balances.  Yet, more is clearly needed.

Again, the core question about electoral “victory.”  Even in a landslide, when just forty percent are left out, should tens of millions of our citizens be lightly dismissed? 

 Shall we look back to the Founders for inspiration?

It turns out that, originally, the Constitution awarded a prize for second place -- the Vice Presidency, which went to the candidate with the second-largest number of electoral votes.  The runner up got a bully pulpit, if little else.  But, after near-disaster in the election of 1804, the system was amended to make the Vice-President more of an assistant, or understudy, chosen by the winning party.  The losing party got nothing.

There were sound reasons for that amendment.  Still, might there have been some wisdom in the original plan?  Can't there be some way to acknowledge the losing minority in a presidential election?  As the anointed champion of millions, the defeated candidate should get something.  Especially in a tight election like this one, sure to leave the losing side feeling indignant and robbed.

Here is one idea that may be plausible. And possibly even politically savvy!

 It requires no meddling in the Constitution, or with legitimate powers of the chief executive.  Yet, it is so reasonable that only a churl could possibly refuse.

Imagine a candidate making the following pledge:

“If I win, I promise to ask my honorable opponent to pick a panel of Americans who will have control over my appointment calendar one Wednesday afternoon per month.   (And I expect my opponent to serve on that panel.) 

"On that afternoon, I shall meet with and listen to any individuals or delegations the panel may choose. Millions of Americans will then know that I do not live in an ivory tower. I will hear dissenting points of view.”

That’s all.  That simple.  Such a pledge would cost a candidate and president little to make or to fulfill.  There is no obligation to act on what the delegations say, only to be accessible to more than one ideology.  More than one brain trust of cloned advisors.  Moreover, the legitimacy of any administration will be enhanced if we see the president receive articulate, passionate emissaries, representing diverse opinions and walks of life.

During the first era of our republic, private citizens used to knock on the door of the White House and ask to see their nation's leader.  As recently as the time of Harry Truman, there was a slim chance of seeing the president somewhere in public, buying socks for real, not as a publicity stunt. Not thronged by photographers and Secret Service agents.  There is peril in losing this connection between power and everyday life. 

 If today's president cannot safely venture among us, representatives of sundry outlooks should have a route to him. Not just public figures, but individuals from the ranks of the poor and dispossessed might win a chance to plead their case before the highest official in the land.  Ronald Reagan showed how anecdotes can tug the heart more than a thousand statistics.  Even if such meetings don’t benefit multitudes, at least a few worthy petitioners might get hearings, and possibly some justice.

If a nominee's goal is to live as a potentate, insulated from his or her countrymen, this is one pledge to avoid. 

 But if the aim is to be president of all Americans – and to start us down a road of genuine healing -  then what harm could such a promise do?