David Frum wrote an interesting column today where he compared GOP politics from WW II to 1988, where Republicans won the presidency 6 times with a Californian on the ticket. Since then, a Texan has been on the ticket 3 times.
Frum finds that a Californian on the ticket produced 100 more electoral votes on average than a Texan and suggests that "Californian" GOP was much appealing to a wide variety of individuals. He also writes about potential candiates Meg Whitman and Tom Campbell who may be able to win statewide offices in the 2010 elections. He cautions though, that the current primary state of the GOP makes it difficult for quality candidates to win elections without resorting to a far right platform.
Frum's message is that California GOP leaders could lead a comeback for the GOP, because they are forced to discuss common sense ideas rather than rhetoric in campaign stops. Whether his message will resonate with GOP primary voters is unclear. California GOPers recognize that their candidates have to have a strong independent push to win elections.
Pretty much the point I would make here is that maybe the way to solve the governing crisis is to eliminate the primary system. How about an open primary system where Republicans and Democrats run together and then a run-off between the top two candidates?? Maybe that would promote centrism and some bipartisan thinking.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Justin's proposal makes sense: to let CA run open primaries that would produce more moderate victors and save the right from the extremists that are saving Democrats but killing the GOP. The only problem is that the Court has ruled against this as it was proposed by Mr. Campbell and then challenged by the parties. The Court ruled, in effect, that the parties can contol how their primaries are designed, which is a switch from earlier rulings banning primaries in the South that under the control of private parties could arrange them however they chose, though their intent was to block black nominees.
ReplyDeleteThis is an Court that can't be chastized for the being a slave to consistency.
Nonetheless, I agree with Justin about the primary system we have: it is not working either at the presidential or congressional level to pick moderate candidates PLUS it's ruining our politics. Trevor is doing a follow up on the Hillary study would did demonstrating how polarized she was as a candidate. Early indications are that as a Sec of State she is far less polarized. It could be the constant quest for votes is convincing voters that the aspirants for the White House are chronic "politicians" and, as such, their integrity is dubious. When the national nominating delegations did the selecting on their own, there wasn't the huge distrust and, arguably, the nominees were better than those we've had since the current system was adopted.
To address the last point first: i've heard a similar argument, and i think it makes a lot of sense. Have open primaries, where any number of candidates can run, and then allow the top two to have a run-off. This would allow third parties with new ideas a fair chance to gain support, while also making sure that overall, the winning candidate has some level of support from a majority of people.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with the first part of the article. Although conservatives in this country outnumber liberals, the center in turn outnumbers conservatives. Candidates usually win when they can win over a large section of the middle without alienating their base. True conservativism (of the Beck/Limbaugh variety) turns off too many people to be nationally viable. Conservatives can win at the local and state level, but in my opinion they need a moderate "California" style Republican if they want to win the White House in 2012. Of course, they probably dont realize this (due to the Becks and Limbaughs) and will eventually nominate a conservative to run as the "anti-Obama". Which might work, but anti-democrat votes arent necessarily pro-conservative votes, just as the opposite is true.
In an open primary system party apparatuses become almost irrelevant. I agree that it would produce more moderate candidates. Another possible, but less attractive, option would be to get rid of our two-party system. There are obviously ideological factions in each party. Keep primaries closed, allow more political fractions; party ID's will become clearer to the public and voters might become more aware of the nuances that shape how policy is made and our government is run.
ReplyDeleteYet another option would be to reform the presidential selection system by retreating to the old days when the party-picked delegates did the nominating, letting a few primaries serve as they used to--namely, as demonstrations of candidate appeal--but stripping the delegate selection process and commitment from the primaries or caucuses. The post-McGovern-Fraser reforms have given us a candidate-centered era, where the remnants of the parties are shells and shils of Corporate America unable to do anything that would require the wealthy to chip in to shrink the deficit, let alone pass a jobs bill that would put people back to work or aggressively downsize the defense budget. Not all of this of course was the fault of McGovern-Fraser; Ronald Reagan and George the Second took advantage of the systemic flaws to reward the corporate/donor class with tax breaks to recycle in part as campaign contributions.
ReplyDeleteThe system we have tires out voters and candidates, elevates the media to a functional role they are incapable of playing, and is an unfortunate example of the law of unintended consequences: what was supposed to enhance our democracy has produced a generation of government failure.
It's time to face the facts: we'd be more likely to have parties based on meaningful differences in principle and elections that were tied to policy outcomes if we admitted that the "y'all come" invitation to the grassroots to take part in the nomination of presidential candidates has backfired miserably. The moderate millions stay home and the anti-political "purists" have stepped into the vacuum to poison our politics and raise profound questions about our future as a Republic.