I refused to vote for Donald Trump. I also declined to cast my ballot for Kamala Harris. But what if we had had a third choice? Given the opportunity, I for one would have pulled the lever for Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Let's face it: this could have turned out to be the mother of all PR stunts, the ultimate October surprise. Cable TV ratings would have gone through the rafters. It could even have made the race fun.
I know. Just one catch: the former world champion bodybuilder, number-one box-office movie star and two-time governor of California was ineligible as a candidate for the presidency. The U.S. Constitution (Article II, Section 1, Clause 5) requires contenders for the White House to be “a natural-born citizen.” Alas, Arnold emigrated here, in 1968, at age 21, from Austria.
Let’s amend the Constitution, say I. It’s happened before. To date, the charter has undergone 27 amendments, starting with the Bill of Rights in 1791 and most recently under Presidents Johnson, Nixon and George H.W. Bush. Those changes over the last 200-plus years have, variously, ensured the right to bear arms, abolished slavery, repealed Prohibition and sanctioned the right to vote at age 18.
Why would I have gone all-in for Arnold over Donald and Kamala? Trust me: I have my reasons. For starters, he would make a better president than either. He governed the most populous state in the union for eight years, a tenure generally regarded as successful. He would manage the U.S. economy and immigration, among other priority issues, with an even hand and a humane touch. He would restore respect and trust from our allies and enemies alike worldwide and project an image of strength rather than of arrogance or timidity.
Arnold is neither hard-right nor hard-left, but, rather, squarely moderate with progressive leanings. As such, he would radiate bipartisan appeal and exert a stabilizing, unifying influence in the face of our stark political divisions.
Oh, yeah, and, thanks to the multiple advantages he would have brought to the table, Arnold could have won, too. He’s still among the most widely known people on the planet, a major brand name by any measure. He’s succeeded in no fewer than three distinctively different careers spanning, successively, athletics, entertainment and elective office. He’s a certifiable billionaire, rich enough to bankroll a quest for the Oval Office if need be. At age 77, he was still physically vigorous and all there in the head.
Besides, we voters deserved a third option. Arnold would have once again deployed his irrepressible optimism and can-do tenacity in the name of public service. And, as he’s repeatedly proven – bonus points here! -- he’s indisputably a public-relations genius. Does anyone even for a second dare doubt that his arrival at the starting line would have made the sorry spectacle of Trump-versus-Harris a ton more entertaining?
Granted, overturning this prohibition against American citizens born beyond our shores pursuing the presidency would take some doing. A two-thirds majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate would have to propose an amendment. The intricate legislative process that ensues would also involve the Archivist of the United States and the Office of the Federal Register. Three-fourths of our 50 state governors would have to get on board, too.
Hey, the law never made any sense to me in the first place. The United States is, uniquely in world history, a nation made up of immigrants. Most of us, or at least our parents, grandparents or great-grandparents, came to this land from another country.
At a minimum, then, the clause barring immigrants from occupying the Oval Office represents a glaring inconsistency. The Constitution allows anyone, natural-born citizen or no, to vie for a seat in the Congress and the Senate. Ditto state governors. So why, if we pride ourselves on extending equal opportunity to all comers, would a bid for the job of commander in chief be regarded as any different? This restriction is a contradiction in terms, hypocritical and even un-American.
Yes, this scheme of mine admittedly smacked of the farfetched. With Election Day now past, it's obviously too late to upend this proviso. Even so, this is why we humans invented pipedreams. Who among us, after all, would have predicted Ronald Reagan living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? If American history teaches us anything, it’s that ideas once considered implausible have a habit of turning probable.
But first, Arnold would have had to break from the Republican party – let’s face it: he was never a full-blown Republican anyway, judging by either traditional or current standards – and declare himself an Independent. Next, he would have had to reintroduce himself to the American public and lay out his agenda for the next four years.
In due course, thanks to a hail-Mary campaign and a bottom-of-the-ninth-inning-with-two-outs victory, Arnold would have taken the oath of office on the steps of the capitol as the first immigrant president. From then on, he would have served as a symbol, inspiring immigrants everywhere, both here and elsewhere, to think big and imagine doing the same.
It could have been done. We would have met the moment to benefit all future presidential hopefuls as well as Arnold. This policy reform would have embodied – as the profoundly patriotic Arnold himself does – what we still rightly presume to call the American dream. It would have reflected not only who we Americans are but also who we always were and should remain.
Comment
Show comments
Hide Comments
