IS OUR PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY SYSTEM BROKEN?
We rethink the week with Glenn Smith, political consultant from Texas who managed Ann Richards’s (successful) 1990 campaign for governor, and Dean Spiliotis, Civic Scholar and Presidential Scholar at Southern New Hampshire University.
We discuss possible problems with the way the presidential primary process is set up. Julian Castro has complained that it’s unfair for the first states that hold a caucus or primary be Iowa and New Hampshire — states with voters who are older and whiter than the overall US population. We recognize the validity of Castro’s point.
But we also note the benefits of the kind of “retail politics” that Iowa and NH can offer. Could large states provide us the kind of in-depth conversations (direct between voter and candidate), with opportunities to follow up if the candidate sidesteps or inadequately answers the question? Would it cost too much to run a primary campaign if, say, Texas were the first state, such that only the big-donor or self-funded candidates would have a chance to get their message heard?
We also note that, even in states like South Carolina and Nevada, with voting populations that are more heavily African-American and Latinx, Biden and Sanders are ahead in the polls (with Warren and Buttigieg close behind). None of the candidates of color, neither Cory Booker, Julian Castro, nor Kamala Harris have had much more success there than they’re having in Iowa and NH.
CAN THE BRITISH ELECTIONS TEACH US ANYTHING?
We wonder whether American Democrats should draw any lessons from the recent election in Great Britain. Some say that the British election shows that progressive policies are simply not ascendant in this day and age. Other commentators say the two countries are not very similar in their electoral politics. This year especially, there are significant reasons why the UK’s politics are not much of a guide for the US. Most obviously, the Brexit question has been overwhelming the minds of every British voter. It is an issue the resolution of which will substantially affect the future of the United Kingdom. To the extent the US has any similarly-galvanizing issue, it’s nothing like Brexit.
Moreover, the Labour Party in Britain did not even take a position (no position whatsoever!) on the Brexit question, leaving voters unsure what future they could expect if they were to elect a Labour government. The American election may have many problems, but nothing like this kind of uncertainty about how one of the parties would treat a significant issue like the EU.
Most likely, the level of dislike for Jeremy Corbyn, the British Labour leader, is the probable reason why voters rejected Labour so strongly. Not any particular policy or set of policies, but rather an ugly personality coupled with racism and anti-semitism. The battle between Democratic centrists and progressives in America seem much more policy-based.
IMPEACHMENT — IS THIS MOMENT ANY DIFFERENT FROM THE REST OF TRUMP’S PRESIDENCY?
From the beginning of Donald Trump’s presidency, he has said and done what many people consider to be outrageous things. But he had won the election, and so he continued to serve his term. What is different now? Why impeach him instead of just waiting for the next election in ten months?
We discuss how Democrats had no choice but to move forward with impeachment now. Despite the country’s concern about Russian interference in the 2016 election which brought Trump to power, it is now clear that Trump’s misconduct — including his violation of the law and of fundamental constitutional norms — will continue if left unchecked.
The president has made it clear that he is continuing his efforts to get foreign governments and oligarchs to help him get reelected in 2020. He is doing everything he can to make it impossible for the American election to be fair and democratic, an election that gives the voters the president they want for the next four years. We cannot rely on the normal checks and balances to prevent the president’s abuse of power. We cannot rely on our constitution’s protections against an elected leader’s using the powers of his office to aggregate all authority unto himself, thereby subverting our democracy.
