![]() |
|
![]()
April 23, 2008
What an elitist thing for me to say!
What's happening is an excellent argument for smoke filled rooms.I can't believe I said that, but I did, in the heat of stress last night. Right now it's looking pretty good. Not just because I hate elections, and not just because this one is the biggest mess I've seen, but because regardless of who "wins," the whole game is idiotic. Parties are supposed to pick their own nominees, and the idea ought to be for the guys on the inside who know what they're doing to come up with whoever they think has the best chance of winning the general election, and who will hopefully be a credit to whatever the party believes in and wants to accomplish. This pandering to various groups, to whoever screams the loudest in the primary, when anyone with common sense knows such people don't decide elections, is about as ridiculous as it would be for the employees of a company to elect the owner. Does it matter that the old smoke-filled rooms brought us some of the greatest presidents the country has ever had? Leftie blogger Jane Hamsher recently remarked on the irony that the smoke filled room principle is being rebadged as superdelegates "voting their conscience." I just find it rather ironic that the same people who were quite recently whipping everyone into a frenzy about "deals in smoke filled back rooms" and the end of democracy are looking to that very process and having superdelegates "vote their conscience" in order to pull the party's bacon out of the fire.I guess the assumption is that people who knew what they were doing under the old system were without conscience. Such yearning for the past is by no means limited to the left. In 1999, some forgotten Bush aide actually said that smoke-filled rooms produced better candidates: The old days of the smoke-filled rooms, says an aide, produced better candidates than the current primary process that has seen Lamar Alexander campaign nonstop for six years. "The genius of the old system was that people with the interests of the party at heart made decisions," the Bush aide argues. "They knew the guys' characters: He's got it, he doesn't. He's clean, he's a slimeball. Clinton wouldn't have got very far under that system."Americans act as if they're stuck with the primary system, as if it's just part of American civics. It isn't. There's nothing in the Constitution requiring primary elections, and the modern system mainly arose because of activists who didn't get their way in the smoke filled rooms. Personally, I kind of like the idea of activists not getting their way in smoke-filled rooms. But then, I don't like activists, and I do like smoke filled rooms. Must be elitism. UPDATE: Speaking of superdelegates who might vote according to their consciences, Michael Barone looks at the potential peril they'd be in: How would you like to be the superdelegate who casts, or is presented by the media as casting, the decisive vote? The vote that will determine whether Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee. The vote that will determine whether you are overriding the delegates elected by the people or whether you are overriding the people who have cast the votes. The vote that will determine whether the party rejects the first black with a serious chance to be elected president or the party rejects the first woman with a serious chance to be elected president.(Or Russian roulette....) UPDATE: My thanks to Glenn Reynolds for the link, and for quoting from this post! A warm welcome to all. Please keep in mind that I do not advocate smoke filled rooms merely as a way of resolving the current impasse, but rather as a way of avoiding such deep party divisions and strife. Hillary has high negatives and so does Obama. But notice the sudden appearance of Sam Nunn in the Obama campaign: In a better world, Sam Nunn (or a David Boren) would have been the party's candidate for president. Such candidacies remain impossible under the iron law of Democratic primary politics: No centrist can secure the party's nomination in a primary system dominated by left-liberal activists. The iron law produces candidacies such as McGovern (1972), Mondale ('84), Dukakis ('88), Gore ('00) or Kerry ('04), who pay so many left-liberal obeisances to win in the primaries that they cannot attract sufficient moderates at the margins to win the general election.Vice presidential prospects are still selected in by the older, better world of "smoke filled room" style politics -- the idea being to come up with someone who will broaden party appeal. I think there's much to be said for the method. Comments welcome, agree or disagree. posted by Eric on 04.23.08 at 05:49 PM
Comments
Each method has advantages and drawbacks. Parties can avoid certain types of mistakes, as noted, but they also develop blind spots about what their voters really think. In the short run, democracy is always less efficient - in the medium and long run, always more efficient. Assistant Village Idiot · April 24, 2008 09:43 AM Smoke-filled rooms begatting better presidents? Such as Warren G. Harding and Benjamin Harrison? Like AVI said, each method has its advantages and drawbacks. In the Dems case, its the proportional system of allocating delegates that's sinking them. (Does someone know what it would be like if they used the winner-take-all system?) Bill Peschel · April 24, 2008 01:25 PM Direct popular election of Senators (17th Amendment, 1913 - a high point of the original "Progressive Era") hasn't worked out particularly well, either. tom swift · April 24, 2008 01:27 PM Donna, I am not convinced that democracy is always more efficient in the long run. I would be hard-pressed to come up with a better system off the top of my head, but that does not mean that such a system does not exist. Democracy has a number of well-known flaws—the greatest of which is that it is crucially dependent on the prudence and acumen of the greater part of the populace. Should voters systematically prefer bad policy, they will eventually get bad policy no matter how many patriotic, intelligent statesmen they have to crush first. Mastiff · April 24, 2008 01:29 PM Direct election of Senators destroyed a check-and-balance between the States and the Federal Government. It is actually a bad thing, Not only do there not have to be primaries, there doesn't have to be a popular election for President. it is the States, through the Electors, that choose the President, not the people. It is just tradition that all of the States use a popular election to choose their Electors. The Electors could be chosen by the State Legislatures in smoked filled rooms if the Legislatures so chose. ManekiNeko · April 24, 2008 01:44 PM AVI asks ... Does someone know what it would be like if they used the winner-take-all system? Hillary Clinton would have already won the nomination. This assumes the same number of votes in the primaries and giving all caucus electoral votes to the caucus winners. This is true even awarding Obama all delegates from "Democrats Abroad" and the territories that get Democratic convention delegates. (In the general election, only states and DC get electoral votes.) It assumes Clinton wins Texas, which had a mixed primary-caucus system. Clinton got more votes, but Obama did better in the caucus. If you give Texas to Obama, then the race would still be undecided at this point. Lewis · April 24, 2008 01:56 PM Mastiff, on this blog, comments aren't boxed together with their author-label. They alternate comment/label; comment/label. It was Assistant Village Idiot who made the comment to which you are referring. (Yeah, I've made the same mistake here.) Hey, at least when we respond to the wrong guy, we know we've made a mistake. AVI here hasn't defined terms "democracy" and "efficient", which makes his comment Not Even Wrong. When he learns to say something that rises to the level of "wrong" then maybe his village will consider him for that promotion... David Ross · April 24, 2008 01:58 PM The primary system is a good way to weed out candidates who might go nutty under the stress of the presidency. It isn't designed to produce a good president, but it guarantees that we won't get a bad one. johnbrown · April 24, 2008 02:03 PM Ummm ... Go Elitism!?! mdmhvonpa · April 24, 2008 02:17 PM "Today it would have to be a non-smoke filled room." Don't be ridiculous. Those rules are for the little people, not for party bosses. The backrooms would undoubtedly be filled with smoke. The only question is, what kind? In the case of the Democrats, it would undoubtedly be marijuana smoke. Harry · April 24, 2008 02:24 PM damn machine...press some key somewhere and all of a sudden the screen goes wild and the message gets lost... johnbrown · April 24, 2008 02:26 PM "I am not convinced that democracy is always more efficient in the long run." Democracy is terribly INefficient. For getting things done quickly and with a minumum of fuss, you really can't beat a dictatorship. Fortunately, our Founding Fathers were not concerned with efficiency when they designed our political system. They were more interested in liberty. Anonymous · April 24, 2008 02:28 PM The primary system introduces extra money and cultish followers into the game. We'd be better off if that money was spent in the general election and if the cultists were ignored. Anonymous · April 24, 2008 02:50 PM "In the case of the Democrats, it would undoubtedly be marijuana smoke." Hardly. Elite Dems smoke the same expensive cigars that elite Repubs smoke. It is us little people who are stuck with Swisher Sweets. Letalis Maximus, Esq. · April 24, 2008 04:08 PM The Assistant Village Idiot speaks of democracy, but is the system of primaries really democracy in operation or the mere simulated appearance of democracy? Also, are caucuses attended mostly by political junkies (normal people have a life and do entertaining things in their leisure time, like go bowling) and low turn-out primary balloting the right tool for the job of picking a political party's nominees? Like Eric, I'm doubtful. Warren G. Harding is unfairly underrated as a President, more than a little because the lovers of Wilsonian policies were upset that Harding dismantled them. Were I arguing against the smoke-filled room of lore, I'd have used Wilson as the negative example for he was a huge threat to American liberties. As for Howard Dean being weeded out in the 2004 Democrat primaries, just look at who they weeded-in -- that is refutation enough that the system of primary elections produces better nominees. michaelyi · April 24, 2008 04:41 PM The collapse of the 2-party system can be blamed first and foremost on the "Campaign Finance Reform" of the 1970s. These laws stripped the parties of their function in selecting and promoting candidates and put the task on the backs of the candidates and their supporters themselves - meaning that if YOUR supporters have more money than MY supporters, you win and I lose. Fundraising (aka "butt-kissing") consumes 50%-80% of most congresscritters' time now and they have little or no loyalty to the political parties they represent - in fact just the opposite; a party that doesn't kowtow to a well-monied PAC risks watching it pick up its ball and go home. The up-side to the old smoke-filled room days was that the people making the decisions were professionals who knew what made a successful politician and what didn't. The three remaining (surviving?) candidates today probabably wouldn't have made the cut in the Bad Old Days. I wouldn't be unhappy if they hadn't. Orion · April 24, 2008 04:46 PM Dictatorships are highly efficient at delivering whatever the dictator wants. Overall efficiency? Not so much. Republics work because they are the best system we've come up with for aligning the interests of leaders with the interests of citizens, without the erratic behavior of a direct democracy. Robert · April 24, 2008 04:47 PM Sounds like the political version of the 'Moral Hazards' argument you hear bantered about in financial circles.... But I don't think the issue is one of which room it occurs in. The issue is that under the current environment there is NO vetting occurring at all at the National or State party levels anymore. Had Dean issued oppo research on Obama he never would have made it out of Iowa. JohnMc · April 24, 2008 04:49 PM Numbers don't lie, when the Democrats instituted new rules in '72, they had held the white house for 24 of the previous 36 narciso · April 24, 2008 09:53 PM Florida is currently in a budget crisis (I'm sure the same could be said for a few dozen other states). I wonder if they could have said, "Sorry, we're not having a primary. The party leaders in the state legislature will pick all the delegates. Talk to them about which candidate to support." Would they have still had those delegates stripped if the legislature announced (or leaked) their choice(s) in late January? in March? Basically I'm wondering about whether a state could unilaterally go 'smoke-filled room'. They probably could. Patrick · April 24, 2008 11:18 PM I also dislike the primary system and campaign finance reform, but these are in my view just ancillary issues. Everybody knows that it costs a lot of money to become a major party candidate, but why? Eisenhower ran and won twice, and I doubt that he spent much of his or other people's money to do so. The reason is that the media has turned the Presidential race into a continuous three-ring circus. It used to be that the race didn't begin until Labor Day, and lasted about 2 months. The current election cycle has been going on since at least 2004, and arguably since 2000, and I don't even want to think about the number of nabob-hours that have been consumed in the process. A candidate needs to raise a lot of money to last that long. Why should it be so? It would make perfect sense to go back to the old-style campaigns -- at least that way there would be more potential candidates. Put aside whatever preconceived notions you may have and ask yourselves who benefitted the most from McCain-Feingold? The media, that's who. And who lost the most? The voters, that's who. And who pays for primary elections? The taxpayers, that's who. How else did the media get such a chokehold on the election process? Pink Pig · April 25, 2008 01:58 AM ManekiNeko; a thousand times, Amen! Given a choice, I'm inclined to axe the the Seventheenth over the Sixteenth any day. The Constitution is basically a contract between the States covering what they agree to as a federal government on behalf of their citizenry. The Seventeenth removed the representation of the States in the federal government. Amongst the power struggle between the three branches an underappreciated check and balance used to exist between the House and Seante, as the House would seek to pander to its constituency through largess and the Senate would seek to please its by restricting federal encroachment. Now noone in Congress has a designed existential motivator to reign in growth of the federal government. submandave · April 25, 2008 10:57 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
April 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
April 2008
March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSALLAMERICANGOP See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Wing nut joins the ring nuts. (A classical advance in science!)
It Is To Laugh What Is It About Obama? Bob Barr's borderline Libertarianism Satan weighs in Hillary's health plan? The governor's daughter Cheer up! But I thought we were just voting for a nominee! Crash The Convention - See You In St Paul
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Today it would have to be a non-smoke filled room.