Balkinization: Democracy and the Democratic primary process

Democracy and the Democratic primary process

Sandy Levinson

If there is one thing that is clear about contemporary America, it is that "democracy" scarcely describes our approach to politics. No, I'm not going to do another attack on our Constitution. Instead, I continue to be interested in the widespread belief that the Democratic primary has gone on "too long" and that something needs to be done to wrap it all up (and, in fact, that it should have been wrapped up weeks ago). As a committed Obamaite, I've not been above such thoughts, but as a slightly more detached analyst, I wonder what exactly is wrong about the current imbroglio, at least if one believes in democracy.

Consider the following: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama actually have had to visit states like Texas, Wyoming, and Mississippi, which they will certainly not do for the general election. They will also find themselves in North Carolina and South Dakota before too very long. This means, among other things, that they are actually forced to become familiar with issues that might matter to people in those states and address them as, gasp, the equal of Democrats in safe states or the fabled swing voters in the few "battleground states." I'm opposed, of course,

to the over-representation of South Dakota or Wyoming in the U.S. Senate. And perhaps something needs to be done, as suggested in earlier comments to one of my postings, about the undue influence that Iowa and New Hampshire have over the process, but the answer is surely not to deprive small states--or "safe Republican states" like Texas--of a role in selecting the nominees of their parties. The answer to over-representation in the Senate surely can't be no genuine representation in the presidential nomination process.

And it's not only the "post-Super-Tuesday" states who are benefitting. Columbia law professor Christina Burnett has noted in a piece for the Wall Street Journal that Puerto Rico's delegates are suddenly precious commodities, so that Obama and Clinton will have to pay attention to what is, at present, the largest remaining colony in the world. I am defining "colony" here is defied as territory "owned" by a country that refuses to give it (i.e., the territory) representation in the national institutions of governance. French colonies have representation in the French legislature, and Tibet, perhaps regrettably, is viewed as part of the Peoples Republic of China. Puerto Rico, of course, became part of the American empire because of an ealier "splendid little war" in 1898, but the island continues to occupy a limbo-like status. I, for one, will be extremely interested to hear what the candidates have to say about the future of Puerto Rico, as I assume is the case with Puerto Ricans themselves. Obama has supported "self-determination." Is he prepared to fight for statehood if that should be the majority's desire, including the retention of Spanish as the island/state's primary language? Ditto Hillary. Would either accept an unlikely vote in favor of independence? I am absolutely confident that neither would feel the slightest need to learn anything about Puerto Rico in the absence of the need actually to campaign for votes there. (I understand that Puerto Rico is a beautiful place to visit sometime after the Pennsylvania primary!) If John McCain has well-thought-out views about Puerto Rico, I haven't heard them expressed. And I'm sure we're not likely to hear anything from McCain before the election (unless, of course, he believes that Obama or Clinton makes a mistake regarding Puerto Rico that can serve as a useful foil for his own campaign).

Finally, there is also the obvious fact that the repeated debates between the two candidates, for all of their flaws, actually help to give us relevant information about whom we want to serve as president (including answering the phone at 3AM). One might think that is important in a country that professes to take democracy seriously. As the United States professes, often incoherently, to favor the spread of "democracy" across the world, ask yourself which of the nominating processes of the two American parties offers a more attractive example of choice "by the people." Shouldn't those of us who are Democrats (as well as democrats) take some pride in that? Do we really envy the 60% of the Republicans who voted against John McCain and are trying desperately to summon up enthusiasm for his candidacy?

Posted 3:36 PM by Sandy Levinson [link]

Comments:

you make some excellent points, Professor Levinson. And I'm rooting for Obama too.

I'm hoping that if Americans continue to observe the debate, thus getting better informed, their doing so will make it tougher for McCain to snowball us with a bunch of platitudes in Fall.

On Puerto Rico, I propose that the argument to vacate and abandon should have nothing to do with the Puerto Ricans.

We need to do so as part of our effort to restore our moral authority among the family of nations.

I would argue that the USG receives its moral authority from having been the original de-colonializer.

It's critically important that our government follow through with that process and make good on its 1898 promise to bring independence and freedom to Spanish territories, including Guantanamo Bay.

It's never too late.

# posted by

redwood : 4:10 PM

you might want to format your post

# posted by

Joe : 4:25 PM

Nice piece. This campaign has certainly energized and politicized a large portion of the electorate. And I actually think that our primary process is a great way to challenge candidates to speak to the specific needs of different states and regions while maintaining an integrated agenda. Your point about Puerto Rico is spot on.

I have mixed feelings about how much we learn about candidates from campaigns, though. After all, campaign ads tend to manipulate our unconscious fears; most dirt we discover isn't real and only meant to taint candidates; and much of the coverage is dependent personal preferences of reporters.

So far as the Clinton camapign goes, it seems to have drawn us further from real issues as the camapign has progressed (or should I say regressed). Further, she has sought to break the rules of the campaign in seating Michigan and Florida. This is cheating.

So perhaps we are learning more. But at what price? And is everyone else taking notes on these lessons? I'm not sure.

Theo Horesh

# posted by

Unknown : 4:28 AM

“I am defining "colony" here [is defied] as territory "owned" by a country that refuses to give it (i.e., the territory) representation in the national institutions of governance.”

An excellent post, with a rigorous definition of the term “colony.” It applies, of course, to the District of Columbia, which is a colony with partial, but not full, representation in national governance. DC has three electoral votes, more than it would be entitled to by its population, but the same as Wyoming, which has fewer people. It has no voting representation in the legislature.

Lawyers should know that DC is also without a voice in the selection of any of its judges and prosecutors. It has no Senators to confirm its federal judges, its federal prosecutor, or the Supreme Court Justices. Curiously, the judges of its local Superior Court and Court of Appeals are also presidential appointees, and DC cannot vote for their confirmation. To top it off, the Assistant U.S. Attorneys present local criminal cases to the Superior Court grand juries and try them in Superior Court. A recent [apparently unconstitutional] bill would have given it a single voting representative in the House, but would have left it without a whisper in the selection of its judges. (The bill died in a Senate filibuster).

DC does fit into your paradigm on primary elections, since Obama did campaign there en route to his victory. As a consolation, they do get HBO, not just basic cable, and were able to watch John Adam’s riveting court advocacy in the Boston Massacre case, in a colonial court before a judge appointed by the King, on “Boston Legal:1770” last night.

DC deserves a subchapter in the next edition of Our Undemocratic Constitution.
Vince Treacy

# posted by

Vince Treacy : 6:18 PM