Analyzing the workings of presidential primaries
As the current Republican hopefuls wage war on each other in the Democrat-designed gauntlet that leads erratically to their party’s nomination for president, it is helpful to remember that such political institutions as state primaries and caucuses are not necessarily innocent bystanders.
Students of politics know that political institutions are designed to shape the actions of citizens in government and politics. As James Madison wrote in “The Federalist” about the three separate branches of the federal government, “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected to the constitutional rights of the place.”
What Madison meant was that the impressive functions, powers, procedures, modes of election and tenures of legislative, executive and judicial office holders would contribute to the effective operation of each branch. These persons would do their duty because it would be in their interest to do so.
The current nomination spectacle is not pretty. While one cannot discount the characters of the GOP hopefuls, neither can one overlook the effect of the requirements for winning in the many state contests for the next six months. Many citizens are appalled at the tactics indulged in to win the Iowa caucuses, the New Hampshire primary and soon the South Carolina primary. But intra-party contests are inherently problematic, as they have always been.
Back when there were only a few such publicly waged contests, the identity of the nominee was not known until the party conventions. Now the winner may be known by next month. How did so much of a process intended to ensure widespread public participation become practically superfluous?
Madison is helpful on this score also. Criticizing the notion that enlarging the legislature makes it more democratic, the Father of the Constitution wrote: “The countenance of the government may become more democratic, but the soul that animates it will be more oligarchic. The machine will be enlarged, but the fewer, and often the more secret, will be the springs by which its motions are directed.”
Notice that, in spite of the increase in the number of state contests, many suspect that the system in somehow rigged by the “establishment.” But all are playing by the same rules, are they not?
Actually, the suspicious citizens are right, but not in the way they think. Given that the first races are the most crucial, candidates with broad support attract money well in advance and turn these formidable obstacles to their advantage. The truth is, every reform designed to democratize our politics only encourages candidates to try to manipulate the system.
That was the case when Democrats instituted the current crazy-quilt pattern. George McGovern, reformer of 1968, became George McGovern, presidential candidate of 1972. Politicians are conceited enough to believe that they deserve nomination, and that processes should facilitate their success and certainly not stand in their way.
I am not saying that the ultimate nominee will be the most ruthless, but I am saying that forcing even the most good and decent persons to travel so many miles, shake so many hands, make so many promises, and spend so much money is not benign and indeed may not bring out the best in them.
Long before primaries and caucuses began to dominate presidential nominations, concern was expressed about the primary elections instituted for most offices by Progressives 100 years ago. The concern was that losing candidates, who fought so tenaciously for nomination to federal, state and local office, would be reluctant to forgive and forget once the party’s voters made their choice.
But that pales in comparison to reconciling the supporters of the losing candidates. Office seekers desire a future in politics, which they will not have if they act the part of “spoiler” in the general election. Their supporters have no comparable incentive.
Requiring millions of citizens to act like political kingmakers, in short, may not be the wisest way to nominate presidents. For not only are very few of them directly affected by the consequences of their choices, but numerous non-party voters share in decision making.
Unfortunately, losing candidates in the presidential hunt can point to all the votes they got in primaries and caucuses as an argument for a third-party run. If they have especially enthusiastic supporters, are rather old and not likely to continue in their current station, the likelihood of “bolting” is greater still.
These are sobering thoughts in a process we must hope will not turn out badly.
ABOUT THE WRITER
Richard Reeb taught political science, philosophy and journalism at Barstow College from 1970 to 2003. He is the author of “ Taking Journalism Seriously: ‘Objectivity’ as a Partisan Cause” (University Press of America, 1999). He can be contacted at rhreeb@verizon.net.
