Learning from deplorable ’16 race
Prez primary system fails to yield worthy candidates
At last, the end of this bizarre, disturbing and toolong presidential contest is in sight. The Republicans have nominated the only candidate who could lose to Hillary Clinton; the Democrats have nominated the only candidate who could lose to Donald Trump.
The two major party candidates are the most disliked, even detested, in modern (maybe all) presidential campaign history. Clinton, because she is untrustworthy, unpleasant, venal, politically corrupt, and, for a nation seeking new alternatives, she is past cement — a “poster-pol” of the last quarter century. Trump, because he is boorish, brutish, coarse, crudely inarticulate, devoid of an ideology (which he probably couldn’t spell, let alone have), a braggart and a vulgarian — in sophisticated parlance, a jerk.
For many voters the decision is: the other one’s worse. If either party had nominated a more palatable candidate, that nominee would now be headed for a landslide victory. Not able to see well in the mirror, Hillary Clinton reached for this a few weeks ago when she said rhetorically, albeit ungrammatically, “Why aren’t I leading by 50 points?” (Memo to Ms. Clinton: “I aren’t” is incorrect — although doubtful that grammarian Trump noticed.)
There is a discontent in the country, a feeling that we’re moving retrograde: anemically growing economy, soaring national debt, feckless foreign policy, failing Obamacare, and, over all, a miasma of a coarsening society and moral decline.
It is reminiscent of the country’s “malaise” in the late ’70s under President Jimmy Carter. The Republican response then was Ronald Reagan and his evocation of “morning in America.” But Reagan possessed a sunny disposition, unexcelled communication skills, grounded philosophical beliefs and the ability to work well with those he disagreed with. The Republican response this time is Trump, who has none of those attributes.
Indeed, Trump touts himself as the great negotiator. Yet he insults and demeans not only the opposition but even those in his own party, who would presumably be his congressional allies were he to become president. That is hardly a good predicate to successful negotiations. People frequently ask how the parties could have put up these candidates. The answer is the parties didn’t. The voters did (although establishment Democrats came closer to arranging the outcome with some improper maneuvering to squeeze out Bernie Sanders). On the Republican side, however, there was no elite group of kingmakers who met and anointed a candidate.
Both parties have a nominating system based on state primaries. This means voters determine the nominee, but the unintended consequences have been substantial. The campaign is excruciatingly long and, therefore, extremely expensive. (The next one will start the day after this one ends.) Over the long period the candidates are attacked and debased by each other and the media — those attacks and charges often bearing only a tangential relationship to the truth.
The result is not only the diminution of the eventual nominee but also the dissuasion of capable and successful people from running; they refuse to subject themselves and their families to the abuse and the humiliation — with the nation being the poorer for it.
Early primary voting states get disproportionate solicitation, while other states vote after the outcome is a foregone conclusion and, therefore, have no impact and get less attention.
Moreover, a minority of voters determine the presidential outcome. On his way to becoming the presumptive nominee, Trump got around 10.5 million votes. (He ultimately got more, but the last states voted after the nomination was secured; it was just ratification.) This means about 4 percent of the population determined the result for the other 96 percent. We have a tail and dog problem.
Lastly, but importantly, the people who vote in primaries are mostly activists or are impassioned about certain issues. This means the more extreme positions and more demagogic candidates are likely to be successful — as 2016 attests.
We are a hardy and resilient people. We will survive this election; in two years we can make at least partial corrections, as needed. But we should learn from this year’s experience and move to prevent a repeat of the mistakes.