I've been dissatisfied with the primary campaign this past year, but I don't think that it's because of the candidates or the banality of the campaign events. This lack of satisfaction has kept me disengaged from the process. Today I think I put my finger on the source of my discontent.
The candidates are essentially running without a platform, "in the air" so to speak. A lot of the debate hinges on so-and-so's "plan" for something (or the lack of one), be it healthcare, getting out of Iraq, immigration reform, or what have you, yet these plans were, relatively speaking, thrown together by the candidates and their advisors early in the process, and then it becomes almost completely impossible for them to be altered, because that could make the candidate appear wishy-washy. That's no way to solve a problem.
I think that a much better idea would be for the party primary elections to be about the party platform, as well as about the candidates. That way, the debate and the primary votes would have a direct impact on the party as a whole, and would determine the entire direction of the party and all of its elected officials, as well as the candidates.
Under this scheme, local groups would submit their ideas, and the state parties would collate them and prepare a palette of alternatives representing a range of possibilities in each major area. The candidates would focus their discussions on the platform planks and their own preferences, pro or con, as well as on their own personal candidacies. People who were not themselves trying to get nominated, but who are strong advocates for some particular position, would partake of the events. Fundraising would focus on the entire process, not on individual candidates.
It is true that this process would reduce the relative importance of the candidates, and I think that that would be a very good thing. The relative parity among the Democratic candidates this round underlines this point. I think that most of us could easily accept any of the "frontrunners" as their nominee, but we differ in various ways on some potential platform planks, and more importantly, we haven't even seriously begun to discuss several others. For example, we could be hammering out the stance of the Democratic party on how to withdraw from Iraq or what the party's--not the candidates'--position will be on healthcare, instead of all these petty discussions about what each candidate had for breakfast.
This would also allow the candidates to lead much more effectively through the platform process. For example, it would be possible for a candidate to back one idea, but through discussion, to allow evolution, compromise, and innovation to occur, right during the primary campaign.
This change would also connect the people to the platform directly, instead of indirectly through the candidates. We would be much more a party of the people, I think. The role of the candidates would be to deliver the platform their their abilities as leaders, negotiators, and executives. Isn't that what a political party should really be about?
Well, that's it.
Happy New Year.
Greg Shenaut