The Arizona Republic

Let’s compromise by canceling never-ending primaries

- Columnist Jonah Goldberg On Twitter: @JonahDispa­tch.

The Democratic primary campaign started in January, but it already feels as if it began in the late Jurassic period, and the first votes are still three months away.

Primaries are a lot like Christmas: The shopping season begins way before, and things rarely live up to expectatio­ns. (I mean this in the secular sense. I’m not talking about celebratin­g the birth of Jesus; I’m talking about pretending to be psyched about new socks or, say, Joe Biden.)

I still like Christmas, but I’m happy to play the Grinch with the primaries. We should get rid of them. If I could, I’d sneak into the Whovilles of Iowa and New Hampshire and steel the voting machines, ballots and bad coffee.

In the past, my Grinchines­s was mostly reserved for the “first in the nation” Iowa and New Hampshire votes. Why should these two states have so much power? Two generation­s of political consultant­s have made their careers by knowing how to fill hotel rooms in Des Moines and whose palms to grease in Nashua. Scour the Federalist Papers and the Constituti­on and you’ll find no mention of primaries, never mind the Hawkeye and Granite State Hegemony. And yet, if you win in either or both, you’re statistica­lly likely to become your party’s nominee.

The Iowa caucuses are a particular affront. If it weren’t for them, there’d be no ethanol subsidies, which are bad for your car, the economy and the environmen­t. If such things bother you, Iowa and New Hampshire are also very white places, and I don’t mean in the white Christmas sense.

But the proposed remedies – rotating the primary states every four years, nuking Iowa from orbit, etc. – don’t really fix the underlying problem. We shouldn’t have primaries at all .

Primaries date back to the early 20th century, but they never mattered much until 1972, when the Democrats (with Republican­s soon to follow) did something revolution­ary: They voluntaril­y relinquish­ed the ability to choose their own candidates. No other advanced democratic nation has done this (though the British have been heading in that direction, which is one reason their politics are becoming as dysfunctio­nal as ours).

The argument for democratiz­ing the selection of candidates was justified with the prepostero­us notion that there’s nothing wrong with democracy that more democracy can’t fix.

Those infamous “smoke-filled rooms” – among my favorite kinds of rooms, by the way – were supposedly bad because they allowed party bosses to impose their choices on voters. There’s no doubt mistakes were made by those party fat cats and fixers, but those smoke-filled rooms also gave us Lincoln, Coolidge, the Roosevelts, Eisenhower, Truman, Kennedy, et al. I don’t love all of those guys, but it’s not obvious to me primaries would have given us better.

One of the paradoxes of democracy is that it depends on healthy institutio­ns that are fundamenta­lly undemocrat­ic. Families don’t put everything to a vote, nor do churches, the Boy Scouts or the Marines. Back before the parties were castrated by the primaries (and other subsequent “reforms”), they had the power to impose standards on candidates and to protect their long-term interests and principles.

James Madison was a better philosophe­r than Alexander Hamilton. He understood that parties were a necessary tool of democracy because they forced different factions and interests to compromise in order to win. Kindred groups were willing to sacrifice a few items from their wish lists if it meant their party would be able to deliver on most of its agenda.

Primaries blow all of that up. Candidates on the left and right promise purity in all things, and elected politician­s are often more scared of a primary challenge than a general election contest. Pandering to the most passionate­ly ideologica­l voters is the direct result of democratiz­ing party decisions.

This leaves the parties behaving like advertisin­g agencies for whichever candidate happened to exploit outrage the best – or lied most convincing­ly about the things they can deliver. The Democrats right now are like department store Santas promising the kids jetpacks and lightsaber­s. Once elected, they’ll be lucky to deliver socks. And the resulting outrage will restart the whole stupid cycle all over again.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States