The Undemocratic Democratic Party - Granite Grok

The Undemocratic Democratic Party

Non-Democrats are having fun criticizing the undemocratic nature of the party’s presidential nomination process — from the large numbers of super-delegates who are free to ignore primary results, to the frequent rule changes that seem to be designed to keep certain candidates from appearing in debates.  But such criticism ignores some crucial points.

First, the goal of the nomination process is to find the candidate who, in the opinion of the party leadership, has the best chance of winning (which is why Joe and Bernie are still being considered, and Tulsi is not); and who, in the opinion of the party leadership, will most faithfully represent the views of that leadership (which is why Bernie will be tossed aside, one way or another, and Tulsi will be ignored like the crazy aunt in the attic).

So except when there is one overwhelming favorite, the votes that are cast in Democratic primaries are most accurately thought of as advisory in nature.

Second, rule changes are not necessarily a bad thing.  Yes, there are dangers to changing horses in midstream.  But the horse that gets you across a river isn’t necessarily the best horse to ride after you’re done crossing it.

Because something was a rule before Iowa and New Hampshire, that doesn’t mean it should still be a rule after Super Tuesday.  Different stages of any process call for different needs — which is why, generally speaking, only very young and very old people wear diapers.

Third, people routinely make the mistake of thinking that because this is the ‘Democratic Party’, the party must have a democratic nomination process. But that’s not the case.  And it’s not clear that it should be.

A political party exists to help relatively like-minded people avoid dissipating their influence by splitting their votes among different candidates.  Instead, the members of a party unite behind a single candidate.  And there are many different ways to go about choosing such a candidate, only some of which are democratic in nature.

But if consistency is what you crave, consider this:  Democratic Party policies are usually based on the assumption that ‘normal people’ aren’t smart enough to know what’s good for them, and so decisions must be made for them by people who are smarter and better-informed… i.e., the government.

Similarly, the leaders of the Democratic Party assume that ‘normal people’ aren’t smart enough to choose the best candidate, so that decision must be made for them by people who are smarter and better-informed… i.e., the party leadership.

When you think about it that way, it would be weird for it to be otherwise.

Fourth, people routinely make the mistake of thinking that the internal workings of a political party are ‘part of our political system’.  But they’re not.  Political parties are private entities, and can choose their nominees in any way they want (short of dueling) — through primary elections, through systems dominated by super-delegates, by rolling dice, by reading tea leaves, with talent contests, and so on.  They could put their nominations up for auction, if they thought that was for the best.

So even if you think that a party’s process for nominating a candidate is corrupt, that says nothing at all about corruption in our political system.

Not that there aren’t good reasons to believe that our political system is corrupt!  Just that this isn’t one of them.

All of which is to say, if you want to make fun of Democrats, do it because the policies their candidates are proposing are so monumentally stupid.  Don’t waste your energy criticizing a process for being ‘undemocratic’ when it was never intended to be democratic in the first place.

>