Democrats Tweak Primary Arrangements, Don’t Fix Problems

The Commission on Presidential Nomination Timing and Scheduling is a taskforce in the Democratic Party charged with changing the rules by which the party chooses in presidential nominee. It approved some changes on Saturday that will have the chattering classes arguing two years from now about their wisdom and their impact on the election. However, the taskforce has failed to address three fundamental issues successfully: the dichotomy of choosing a leader and choosing a winner, the exceptional influence of rural voters, and the desire to force an early result on the party.

The first flaw arises out of the decentralized nature of American political parties. Howard Dean may be chairman of the Democratic Party, but the party’s members of Congress have made it clear that he doesn’t speak for them. In any other democracy, such a dispute would require Dr. Dean to quit or the members of the party to resign their membership. During the presidential campaign, the nominee becomes the party Dictator (in the Roman sense of the word), and the party tries to choose someone who can beat the Republicans. That makes sense, but it doesn’t necessary provide what George Bush the Elder called the “vision thing” beyond polling day.

The next problem is the excessive power that rural voters have. The first races are Iowa and New Hampshire. Neither has a major city -- Iowa's biggest municipality is Des Moines with around 200,000 residents, and New Hampshire's biggest is Manchester with just over half of that. Yet cities are the drivers of civilization and culture, both the good and the evil. The very idea that Iowa and New Hampshire can create or destroy a candidate before they ever get to New York, Texas or California undermines the idea of democracy.

The final problem is a technical one. In order to conserve campaign dollars, the party wants a quick decision, a virtual coronation. The result does provide a bigger campaign chest to turn on the GOP’s standard bearer, but it also denies the nominee the kind of scrutiny that is needed to ensure the right person has won. In addition, it allows the opposition party the chance to spend more time doing the opposition research that causes “swift-boat attacks ads” and other sleazy things.

The party is still reeling from the McGovern nomination victory and electoral disaster of 1972. The party bosses (who were a corrupt bunch of hacks) lost their control of the process, and an infusion of democratic ideals now allows people who don’t follow politics to select someone they “can relate to.” The process has been dumbed down, and the candidates now spend all their time raising money because one has to reach a disengaged electorate by way of TV. Choosing, as the taskforce has, to add a caucus or two between Iowa and New Hampshire is tantamount to rearranging the deck furniture on the Titanic. The real solution is a national primary open only to those registered Democrats who voted in the last presidential election or who were under 18 at the time. Or the bosses could simply take the process back and let the professionals choose the person upon whom their careers will depend.

© Copyright 2005 by The Kensington Review, J. Myhre, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent.
Produced using Fedora Linux.


Home