One of my political essays: “Why The Candidates Should Stipulate,” has been circulating in various forms for years.  I know the most recent version was read by people in Obama’s campaign.  Could this be what gave them the idea for the following?

At 8:30 this morning, Senator Obama called Senator McCain to ask him if he would join in issuing a joint statement outlining their shared principles and conditions for the Treasury proposal and urging Congress and the White House to act in a bipartisan manner to pass such a proposal. At 2:30 this afternoon, Senator McCain returned Senator Obama’s call and agreed to join him in issuing such a statement. The two campaigns are currently working together on the details.
    
It does sound like precisely what I recommended. 

And so, let me offer a freash version of that essay, below. (I had planned to post it today, anyway!)  It continues on the theme of my previous essay here...offering some nonpartisan, unconventional win-win proposals that might help either major candidate to be successful and help us all.

 ---------------

Stipulation - How Obamacain Could Save Us, No Matter Who Wins

Watching Barack Obama and John McCain meet at the 9/11 Memorial Site - sharing a handshake, a brief hug, and sincere solemnity at an event that transcends politics - we were reminded of a simple truth: that some of America's best moments arise not from polar opposition, but consensus.  Pure - and puerile - dichotomies can be as toxic as monomaniacal uniformity.  Both kinds of fanaticism must give way to negotiated problem-solving, or we'll never meet our challenges in time to move on to the next problem, or the next.  

Yes, our divisions seem stark.  And yet, even amid a frenzy of partisan squabbling and ongoing Culture War, all isn't black-and-white. Or red vs blue.

Illustrating this point, the Los Angeles Times recently offered an editorial about ”Obamacain” -- highlighting areas where the candidates overlap. “(Obama and McCain) will have plenty to argue about. But some might be surprised at the breadth of issues on which they largely agree.”  Pointing to oases of concurrence on national security, immigration, the environment and social issues, the Times went on to suggest that consensus, instead of Fox-style reflexive opposition, ought to be attractive now and then.

More examples keep surfacing, mostly unremarked by sensationalist media.  For example, Senator Obama has offered to put on the table resumption of both offshore drilling and "responsible" nuclear power, if these are balanced by movement on a wide range of environmental matters.  And, while Senator McCain hews to the Bush Doctrine of unilateral pre-emptive warfare based on sole presidential prerogative, he’s aligned with his opponent about ending the use of torture. Moreover, in switching his campaign theme from "experience" to "change," McCain now calls for uprooting corruption in Washington.  (He should be challenged to offer specifics.)

While praising these areas of policy overlap, the Times failed to point out the obvious – that  these areas of overlap happen to be where both campaigns already saw the lay of the land.   They arose out of the candidates following us, not the other way around.  Unfortunately, the Times stopped short of following their own logic… taking this notion of overlap to a bold-but-logical conclusion.

 So let's do it here.

Bear with me a bit.  After belaboring the obvious, we'll reach a startling proposition.  


Why we're never told what the candidates really believe.

The worst part of Culture War is the way it thwarts even kindergarten skills of negotiation and pragmatic compromise. Worse, candor is punished.  While both sides rail at each other, they'll never aim bad news at us. Even if both nominees believe, deep-down, that we need to face some hard truth, neither will say it first, lest the other take advantage.

Of course there must be be some areas where Obama and McCain – two smart and well-informed men - agree with each other, but are afraid to speak.  Underneath these ambitious politicians, might there lurk a simmering statesman, fearful to come out?  

Now, step back and ask yourself.  If a majority of voters have already pledged general fealty to one of two nominees, haven’t we already voted, months before the general election, to trust their wisdom enough to listen... at least tentatively... to areas where they both agree change is needed?

Consider a logical solution. There is no political cost to telling voters what you really believe... if your opponent has agreed, in advance, to say the same thing.

It's called stipulation... as when the attorneys for both sides in a trial agree to agree about a set of points. By stipulating these points, they help move the trial forward, focusing thereafter on areas of conflict.

What does stipulation have to do with politics? Given the intensity of recent partisanship, is it dumb to picture John McCain and Barack Obama suspending their struggle for one afternoon, meeting like adults to calm down the rhetoric, and then doing something astonishing? Seeking a few points of brief consensus?  Not over the easy stuff, but things they both believe the public needs to know?

Imagine them offering a joint statement. Though reiterating a myriad points of disagreement, they go on to jointly agree that America should, for its own good…  well,  say, raise the retirement age, or curb lobbyists, or create the powerful new post of Inspector General of the United States?  Or help the skilled men and women of the U.S. Civil Service get back to work? (More on this topic another time.)  Or maybe they’d agree (in principle) to do something about the endless, brain-dead drug war?  Yes, even negotiating which points fall into this category would be hard, demanding real courage.  But aren’t these supposed to be brave men?

Clearly, this proposal goes far, far beyond a few editorials pointing out areas of vague, pre-popular overlap. But the upside potential makes it worth at least a passing daydream!  No longer pandered to, might people say -- "Gosh, if both of the major candidates agree that the country needs this strong medicine, then let's give it some thought."

Is the daydream absurd?


Neither impossible nor unprecedented.

In fact, it’s happened before. Franklin Roosevelt was running for a third term,  in 1940, when he asked the Republican candidate, Wendell Wilkie, to stipulate a matter of vital foreign policy. Britain badly needed escort vessels for the North Atlantic and the U.S. had over-age destroyers to spare. But Roosevelt feared the political cost of breaking neutrality. Fortunately, Wilkie agreed to FDR's request, and declared that lend-lease would be his policy too, if elected. Everyone benefited. Wilkie rose in stature. FDR got his policy implemented. Public attitudes shifted profoundly, overnight. And political advantage was briefly put aside for the common good.  Roosevelt and Wilkie continued battling, fiercely, over other matters. Yet, that historical act of stipulation is what shines in memory.

How might today's politics differ if two adults -- each the standard bearer of a major party -- agreed to let it be known how they agree, in just a few ways? Might they take on some of our most politically impossible subjects? Perhaps a cow as sacred as compromise over gun control, immigration or campaign finance reform?  Or, possibly, even Culture War itself?  That would leave plenty to fight over!  Moreover, with millions of Americans yearning for more maturity in politics, suppose a candidate offered this, and the other refused? There might be benefits there, as well.

Consider also this.  A short list of stipulated proposals would make the job of the next president easier, whomever has to take on the hard task of cleanup, ahead.  With both parties officially lined up behind the same small set of measures, at least some of the nation’s business would get rapid attention, before gridlock resumes.

Does this quixotic proposal have any chance of happening during the 2008 election cycle?  About as much as Obama has in Utah, or McCain in Hawaii.  In other words, zilch, alas.  Still, politics evolves. Only recently has the tradition of Presidential debates became so entrenched that no front-runner can now duck them. Ancient hurdles of age, race, and gender are falling. Why not barriers against candor?

Might the Candidates' Post-Convention Summit become traditional, like doldrums in July and mudslinging in October? Someday, the whole nation may look forward to the occasion, once every four years, with a sort of delicious, nervous anticipation -- awaiting the one day when two eminent politicians will tell us not what is politically savvy, but simply wise.


====

 And yes... I hope I had some role in helping this historic thing to happen.

For much more, come visit:

http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/