Plain and Simple: Tim Walz

There is so much about Tim Walz that is likable, but in this writer’s opinion, it all comes down to this: the man is plain and simple. 

Some may find that insulting. These words can undoubtedly be used disparagingly. But take a moment to research their true meanings, and I think you will agree with me. Governor Walz is not a complicated man; he might just be brilliant.

During the initial news coverage about Governor Walz, I thought of Harry Truman, the haberdasher from Missouri who ended up the 33rd President of the United States. Say what you will about Truman; he was indicative of the “plain” Americans who have occupied the highest offices of the land. You might not think of Lyndon Johnson as a “plain” American but, like Walz, he was a high school teacher before getting elected to the House of Representatives in 1937. From there, Johnson would catapult to the Senate and then the vice presidency, and then, through tragedy, to the presidency.  Several years later we had a peanut farmer, Jimmy Carter, as president. He was a plain American from Plains, Ga. 

These three presidents from the 20th century shared another feature with Walz: none was a lawyer. In fact, Tim Walz is the first non-lawyer since Jimmy Carter to grace the Democratic ticket!

I learned this fascinating fact in a recent Slate article  written by Dahlia Lithwick. She makes the case that having a non-lawyer on the team occupying the White House may help the country in many ways, perhaps none as important as convincing the country that changes to the Supreme Court are needed. She writes, “In a year in which the Democrats are putting the Supreme Court on the ballot, that makes [Walz] perfectly positioned to talk about what the court has done to ordinary Americans and why it matters.”  

Lithwick makes an excellent case for the need for reform of, as she calls it, the “imperial” Supreme Court. “The Supreme Court supermajority represents a democracy crisis that needs to be discussed at barbecues and high school lunch tables, not just pondered in the stacks at Ivy League law schools,” she writes. Walz, she concludes, is perfectly positioned for such a discussion. “Let’s have a conversation on court reform from someone who has lived, and taught and governed, under the hand of a court that seems not to care about the real impacts of its decisions.”

The current Supreme Court is an embarrassment, starting with the longest-serving justice — Clarence Thomas—to the Trump-trio of Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett. Lithwick maintains the conservative majority “sees itself as floating above all law and regulation.”  No wonder they could see their way towards granting Donald Trump absolute immunity. For this reason, Lithwick writes, “finally having a nonlawyer on the ticket to speak to what the court has done to ordinary Americans in these few short years is both vital and long overdue.”

For those who think changing the number of justices on the Supreme Court is Constitutional heresy, it will interest you to know that throughout the country’s history, the court has fluctuated from as few as five (John Adams, president) to as many as 10 (Abraham Lincoln, president). The Constitution is silent about a specific number, and rightly so. Needs change, and populations do, too. In 1865, when the court had ten justices, the U.S. population was around 31 million. Today’s population is more than ten times that number — 345 million! Logically, such an increase brings more legal entanglements, yet the Court operates with basically the same number of justices as our ancestors in the mid-19th century.

Plainly, changes are needed, and there would be something especially American if Tim Walz led the charge. It would be simply outstanding. ❧