David Broder is positively distraught, as you can see on today’s op-ed page:
The true insanity of the altered presidential primary schedule does not become apparent until you actually lay out the proposed dates on a 2008 calendar.
The mad rush of states to advance their nominating contests in hopes of gaining more influence has now produced something that is so contrary to the national interest that it cries out for action…
This way lies madness.
Instead of there being a steady progression of contests, challenging and whittling the field of contenders in the wide-open races to select a successor to George W. Bush, it is going to be a herky-jerky, feast-and-famine exercise that looks more like Russian roulette than anything that tests who can best fill the most powerful secular office on Earth.
Sure, "This way lies madness" is a cliche, but Mr. Broder is a most moderate fellow, and he has to be really, really upset to say something like that.
You may not understand his passion unless you know this about him: David Broder actually believes that the primary system we’ve had up to now works. Or at least, if not up to now exactly, in some recent halcyon past that he recalls fondly and warmly amid the snows of Iowa and New Hampshire as he trudges through them every four years.
I admire David Broder. I respect him as much as anyone we ever run on our op-ed pages. But he has this quirk. He thinks the Republican and Democratic parties are good for America. To me, they are enormously destructive forces, tearing the nation apart between false, contrived extremes that in no way reflect, in any rational or consistent way, the actual needs of the country.
For my whole adult life, the parties have been enthusiastically engaged in a ferocious competition to see who can most insult our intelligence every four years. The choices they force upon us are enough to make anyone who cares about the United States of America weep.
Yes, the primary schedule is messed up. But the whole process was messed up already.
Related Posts
So which third party candidates will The State be endorsing in 2008? The guys you admire (Graham, Lieberman, etc.) are all deeply entrenched in the political game.
You had a chance to do something different last year, yet you chose to endorse Hugh Weathers over Emile DeFelice… if you go back and read your endorsement, it sure looks like you’re more interested in the status quo than shaking things up.
He (David Broder) thinks the Republican and Democratic parties are good for America. To me, they are enormously destructive forces, tearing the nation apart between false, contrived extremes that in no way reflect, in any rational or consistent way, the actual needs of the country.
-Brad Warthen
That comment seems a bit extreme don’t you think? Let’s look at some recent third party candidates to see how “moderate” they were:
Ralph Nader. Aside from costing Al Gore the 2000 election, a tragedy we are all continuing to pay for, Nader’s agenda was an extreme left leaning conconction of policies that would have forced government intervention into the market. Nader is nothing if not an ego maniac. He proved that in 2004.
Ross Perot. Running as a true populist Perot’s main campaign issue was closing the borders. Aside from that, Perot had little to say about other issues. Shouldn’t a president offer solutions to all the nation’s problems?
George Wallace. Here’s a man that ran on the single issue of integration. He nearly cost Nixon the 1968 election.
Brad, did you or the State support any of these men? If not and you regard the Dem/GOP axis as evil, why not? Have you ever supported a third party candidate?
It’s not about parties, third or otherwise. What I like is people who, regardless of label, wear party membership lightly — McCain, Lieberman, so forth. Such people are hated by the folks who dominate the nomination process, which is what’s wrong with the nomination process.
I sort of like Merkel’s Christian Democrats, and Tony Blair’s New Labour. Let me know when they put up some candidates for president.
Now that Tony’s no longer busy, I think we should amend the Constitution so that he can run. I can tell you right now that I’d be for him over anybody I can think of likely to be on the ballot.
I don’t know enough about Tony Blair’s politics but I am always impressed to watch him stand before the House of Commons and field questions from the members.
Can you picture George Bush in that environment? If it isn’t written on an index card for him, he’s a disaster. And only marginally better with the cards.
On the other hand, Clinton would have thrived in that forum.
Brad, you dodged the question. Given your vitriolic attack on the GOP and the Dems have you ever supported a third party or independent candidate for president? I have. Since you find the Republican and Democratic parties “so extremely destruction” why don’t you support someone who does not affiliate with one of those two parties. Both McCain and Lieberman are members of one of those two “extremely destructive” parties. McCain, as a candidate for president, is openly courting all of the Republican base groups. He’s changed his opinion many times on the Confederate flag issue in an apperent attempt to please all sides on that issue.
Lieberman ran as the VP for the Democrats. How can you support someone who ran for the number 2 spot for one of the “extremely destructive” parties. Lieberaman is not so much a non-partisan as he is a war monger. Otherwise he’s been a staunchly partisan supporter of almost all democratic issues for years.
I didn’t dodge anything. The only third, fourth, fifth or sixth-party types I could imagine supporting were Europeans.
“Third-party” candidates in America have tended to be people who are far more whacked out than the people the major parties keep nominating. Nader. Wallace. Generally speaking, they are even worse.
If that Unity 08 movement puts together a ticket that looks like McCain-Lieberman, or Blair-Merkel, we can talk. But I suspect it will have trouble coming up with anyone with credible experience.
I miss Pat Paulson.
John McCain acts in and supports a film which is essentially soft porn and eviscerates the first amendment, and he’s Brads’ guy. Way to go Brad. If McCain isn’t “whacked out” who is? That otherwise reasonably sane people can support this old nutjob is a wonder to me. Ed
Bud, I disagree with the claim that Nader cost Gore the election. Gore lost the election for Gore.
The only way a sitting VP from an era of such prosperity loses such an election to a talking head daddy’s boy who’s knowledge of foreign affairs consisted of eating french fries is by shooting himself in the foot. Gore’s heavy sighs during the debate, goofy acknowledgement that the sighs had a negative effect, his cold and impersonal leadership style, his conern with wearing more browns etc. turned me off and I was looking to vote for him.
Nader’s position parallels Brad’s – our government is mired in a destructive duopoly. I’m saddened by how he built up so many years of good will from principled stands and people could dismiss his motivation so casually.
I don’t know about the soft porn, but Gore was a lot funnier on Saturday Night Live than Nader was.
“Soft porn”,”whacked out”,”nutjob”?
Don’t go blind.
The funniest thing about Al Gore is who he’s become now. He’s a clown, and all the funnier because he doesn’t realize it. This fat hypocrite has done absolutely nothing to reduce his own personal environmental impact, and refused to pledge to do so when asked about it before congress. Apparently lifestyle restrictions and reductions in energy use are only for us little people…he certainly can’t be bothered. What a waste of skin. Ed
Broder mentions states that there are two scenarios that could come from this primary election mess, but there is actually a third:
One party could have a candidate that “sows up the nomination” while the other party remains fragmented and in political disarray. Such an outcome would be interesting to say the least. The one party’s front runner would have months to shot him / her self in the foot as the other party runs in circles trying to pick the candidate most unlike the other party’s.
I think that Broder’s point wasn’t that he loves the two party system (Brad you certainly put words in his mouth there), but rather that a measured and deliberate process that gives the voters a chance to pick the best candidate from the ones running.
As for third party candidates, most of the world’s “third” (or fourth or fifth party…) political parties are coalitions of narrow special interests groups. Such politics usually only gets practical legislative / executive results when in office by even more behind doors, under the table dealing than is usual. In the end, those governments fall apart more often than not (Italy and Israel is almost caricatures of governmental dysfunction).
At least our own (and Great Britain’s for that matter) two party systems generally keep the fringe extremists on the fringes when it comes to actual post-election governing. The primary system is the exception to that rule, but in the end, the balance (opposition) of the other party generally compensates after the election.
Broder’s point is well considered. Our’s is an imperfect system, but unless we allow it to self-destruct by coming under the control of the fringe elements of either party or the control of “big money,” probably the best that humans can do.
Brad and Nader may agree that the two party system is bad, but that is where the similarity stops. If you read Brad’s writings carefully, then you will realize that Brad wants to eliminate competing political parties (Am I wrong on this point Brad?). Nader on the other hand, wants to increase the number of viable political parties, as do I. Think about it. Is it a good idea to eliminate political parties? As a first order of business, authoritarian states eliminate competing political parties.
The problem with our system is that it is based on an antiquated political philosophy. Our system is good in that it has separation of powers and enumerated rights, but it lacks in most other respects. To this day, our political system is based mostly on the ideas John Locke. Our political economy is still based on Adam Smith’s ideas, which again are woefully inadequate in modern times. Locke was a great philosopher for his day, but in modernity, too many of his ideas just don’t stand up to scrutiny. Smith wrote in the time when modern statistics were not yet invented. Locke’s Achilles’ heel is cognitions, while Smith’s problems are due to ignorance about divisions of labor and stochastic processes.
Consequently, we are stuck with an empiricist system that forces us to solve problems inductively, and that concentrates power into the hands of a few. Three hundred and twenty years ago, it made sense to use empiricism because knowledge and data were very limited, and modern science was just appearing on the scene. Also, back then, it was more logical to argue for a few individuals to control society because communications were slow, and travel was difficult.
Today of course, the situation is exactly opposite. We know the fundamental laws of just about everything, and we have mountains upon mountains of data to confirm what we already know. Communications are lighting fast and travel is fast too. So, instead of using a system that was designed to gain new knowledge through experience, perhaps we should use the vast amount of knowledge that we already have in the most effective way.
This will require a new system based deductive thinking rather than on empiricism. Also, since the empirical model depends on a few people controlling things, and since these few people have imperfect knowledge (especially in complex systems or societies), then democracy will be required. In the new system, power will be spread among the people.
Finally, old economic theory is going to be thrown out because new stochastic programming methods will prove what neither Locke nor Smith (nor Milton Friedman for that matter) could possibly imagine. In the future, we’ll be able to create a fair economic system that is based on true merit.
Brad calls the two parties “extremely destructive” but endorses their candidates in EVERY election! Talk about warped logic.
Brad, are you saying that since the Republican and Democratic parties are bad for the country, this issue with the primary dates doesn’t matter? Because it seems to me that David Broder’s column was right on the money. Regardless of how you feel about the parties, allowing states to arbitrarily set their own primary dates when they have a clear incentive to set those dates as early as possible is not good for the nomination process.
If that Unity 08 movement puts together a ticket that looks like McCain-Lieberman,
McCain and Lieberman are poles apart on every single issue I can think of except for our invasion and occupation of Iraq. What on ever-lovin’ earth makes you think they would join forces to run for pres and VP? If they ever DID do such a thing (they won’t) it would say more about their naked ambition to higher office than it would about the value of some BS “unity” party that stands for nothing.
So, Mark, are you a Bayesian or a Frequentist?
I agree with Wally.
“Now that Tony’s no longer busy, I think we should amend the Constitution so that he can run…” Brad, if we’re going to amend the Constitution to allow certain individuals to run for President, I have a better idea…after all, we HAD a Tony Blair as President for eight years…his name was Bill Clinton.
Now that’s an interesting question, Jeff. Thank goodness that I never got caught up in the debate.
I don’t make a distinction between probability and statistics. Never have, never will. Actually, my model economy programs use both mindsets-one reinforces the other.
Why don’t we give the new nominating process a chance before we condemn it? Maybe we’ll end up with a very good choice come election day. After all the old process gave us George W. Bush. We can’t possibly do any worse than that.
Brad, you like politicians who don’t stick strictly to the party line. You should love Chuck Hagel. From Wickipedia:
On August 18, 2005, Hagel compared the Iraq War to Vietnam, and openly mocked Vice President Dick Cheney’s assertion that the Iraqi insurgency was in its “last throes.”
In November 2005, Hagel made a much-publicized statement saying “To question your government is not unpatriotic — to not question your government is unpatriotic.” This was in reference to the increasing amount of debate surrounding the Iraq War, and his assertion that the United States should withdraw its troops.
In December 2005, in reference to Bush, the GOP, and the Patriot Act, Hagel made a much-publicized statement: “I took an oath of office to the Constitution, I didn’t take an oath of office to my party or my president.”
In January 2006, Hagel took issue with Karl Rove over controversial statements the White House advisor made concerning the mindset of Republicans and Democrats. Hagel said, “Well, I didn’t like what Mr. Rove said, because it frames terrorism and the issue of terrorism and everything that goes with it, whether it’s the renewal of the Patriot Act or the NSA wiretapping, in a political context.” He also said that “dark clouds” are hanging over the Republican party”, and “If you look at the environment and the atmospherics politically in this town, read any poll. The sixth year of a governing party usually … is not good … the country is tired, a lot of complications in these international issues, we’re at war.”
Hagel further criticized the Bush administration, saying, “National security is more important than the Republican Party or the Democratic Party. And to use it to try and get someone elected will ultimately end up in defeat and disaster for that political party.”
In July 2006, Hagel again took issue with the Bush administration, this time on its handling of the Israel-Lebanon issue saying “The sickening slaughter on both sides must end and it must end now. President Bush must call for an immediate cease-fire. This madness must stop.”[5]
After Republican losses in the 2006 midterm election, Hagel penned an editorial in the Washington Post highly critical of military strategies both employed and proposed for Iraq. He unequivocally declared that “There will be no victory or defeat for the United States in Iraq,” and called for a “phased troop withdrawal”—making Hagel one of the most prominent voices in his party to do so.
According to a SurveyUSA poll, Hagel has a 10% higher approval rating among Nebraska Democrats than Republicans. OnTheIssues.org rates Hagel as a “libertarian-leaning conservative.”
In January 2007, Hagel openly criticized President Bush’s plan to send an additional 20,000 additional troops to Iraq. He called it, “the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it’s carried out.”
Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to:
Chuck HagelTogether with Democrats Joseph Biden and Carl Levin he proposed a non-binding resolution to the Democratic-controlled Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which rejected Bush’s policy as “not in the national interest” in a 12-9 vote.
However in a Senate vote of 94-2 to revoke executive (government) power to replace federal prosecutors without a preliminary hearing, Senator Hagel, and Senator Kit Bond were the only opposition.
After an April 2007 visit to Iraq with Pennsylvania Democratic Representative Joe Sestak, Hagel expressed his belief that support of Iraq should not continue indefinitely, and defended Congressional actions to set a timeline for an end in occupation.