Comments on: The Political Parties Are Too Democratic

By: Papa Z

Papa Z — Sat, 10 Dec 2011 15:01:33 +0000

Actually, the author does make some valid points. If the proverbial “smoke-filled room” represented one extreme, the pendulum has certainly swung just as far to the other extreme. It’s not just the out-of-control primary system. It’s that the system has gotten SO out of control that national campaigns are now two years long; caucuses and primaries are beginning 10 months before Election Day; Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina have a radically disproportionate role in determining nominees.

We are supposed to be living in a republic — not a democracy — a point which seems to have gradually been lost over the last 100 years or so. The national role that the legislatures of the several states was supposed to play has been lost. The balance between the voice of the average citizen (the House of Representatives) and the voice of the state (the Senate) is gone.

Re-thinking the caucus and primary system is a start. But we’ve got a long way to go.

By: ChrisZ

ChrisZ — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 17:48:15 +0000

Fred: The primary system is what allowed a candidate like Reagan to gain ascendancy–I’d say more significantly in 1976, when against all expectation he proved a real challenge to Pres. Ford. Yet even with that showing, it’s a toss-up whether he’d have been the nominee in 1980, had it been up to the brahmins of that era’s (as yet un-Reaganized) Republican party.

Whatever you think of Bush I and II, Clinton, and Obama, it’s not hard to imagine any of them getting to their final destination through anointment rather than an electoral process.

That leaves Carter–and here I admit I’d be tempted to get rid of more than just the primary system to erase him from the national memory!

By: mrmandias

mrmandias — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 23:21:34 +0000

I agree with Blake that we need more democracy, not less.

Specifically, we need to pick our electoral college by lot, like juries.

Pick our Congressmen directly by lot too.

By: Fred

Fred — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 19:27:07 +0000

As the good book says, “By their fruits shall ye know them.” The current primary process has been in place since 1972. Discounting Nixon, who was elected under the previous system, and Ford, who was unelected under any system, the current process has given us one good president, Reagan, two mediocre presidents, Bush I and Clinton, and three utter disasters, Carter, Bush II, and Obama. Is the previous system’s record worse than that?

By: ChrisZ

ChrisZ — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 18:46:44 +0000

What’s interesting to me is that this critique of the uniformity of a “ruling class” in America found its classic expression more than half a century ago, in The Power Elite, by C. Wright Mills. At the time, Mills was a assessing that class from the Left. Today’s critique comes from the Right–and the outlines of the class are different, but the idea of its homogeniety of outlook remains the same. Amazing how those changes–in both the constitution of the “elite” and the perspective of its critics–came about.

By: Blake

Blake — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 16:33:00 +0000

ut what makes you believe the “back-room boys” would be any better at making a more suitable choice? These “expert insiders” are the same people who have given this country the debacles of the past decade.

I am inclined to think the problem is too little democracy, rather than too much.

All our leaders come from the same bubble – a society that starts with The Best Schools (waiting lists to get into kindergarten) and routes through the Ivy League. Such schools teach very different things than what most citizens are taught – and looking out for one’s social class ranks is more important than any sense of shared commitment to “America”.

This can be said even more strongly: it appears that prep schools teach their students to look down on Americans; there is no sense of shared identity but rather exactly the opposite.

Our current “elites” are not concerned about what is best for America.

By: ChrisZ

ChrisZ — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 15:37:30 +0000

David: Thanks for replying. But what makes you believe the “back-room boys” would be any better at making a more suitable choice? These “expert insiders” are the same people who have given this country the debacles of the past decade. Indeed, I’d say that one of the lessons of this period is that the people who were charged with making educated, dispassionate judgments about what’s best for our country turned out to be merely self-seeking, and in fact lacked the very knowledge they claimed to have. This is true not only in politics and finance, but also to a surprising extent in the sciences. Bill Buckley’s insight about the superiority of an essentially random selection process over the prescriptions of some anointed class has greater force in such circumstances.

Put more pithily, maybe you’re not looking for a messiah, but perhaps you’ve imputed “messianic” properties to the workings of the parties. I’m confident that they, too, would prove fallible.

By: Maxim

Maxim — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 07:30:14 +0000

I would rather have Anyone become President than most of the Someones we actually get.

By: David T. Koyzis

David T. Koyzis — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 03:32:32 +0000

ChrisZ, you’re missing the point. I don’t want to see a Republican messiah. I would just like to see a qualified candidate representing each party, including the Republicans. The current “reformed” selection process is not giving us this.

By: ChrisZ

ChrisZ — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 20:51:58 +0000

Delighted to see that FT is including parodies on its blogsite. This one is wonderfully droll.

Look, the answer to our current faux messiah president isn’t another messianic pretender from the opposite party. So stop wishing for one. Mortal humans should be able to execute the office of president, and one of the guys on offer will this year will do. I already have a messiah, thank you very much, and I’m not looking for one in the Oval Office.