With the primary season winding down, those of us supporting candidates apparently falling by the wayside must ask ourselves if we will support the nominee. Most of us will, some of us won't, some of us aren't sure (I'm in this last group).
But more fundamental questions need to be asked as well. The biggest question of all is the simplest one, and one that's so obvious that few of us ever think to ask it, as I didn't until this morning.
That question is this:
Does the primary season serve any real purpose?
My answer is no.
I was born in 1976. Since the year of my birth, every primary in both parties, with one possible exception, has been won by the incumbent president (if any) or by the clear Establishment choice of the party.
The one exception, Bill Clinton's nomination in 1992, was something of a fluke: Mario Cuomo, the party's first choice, didn't want to leave Albany, and no other candidate had distinguished himself. Clinton was no rebel; the motive force behind the DLC, he was a centrist all the way, whatever Freepers might claim.
Once an establishment choice has been made, most primary voters are happy to support him. Most Democrats and Republicans are generally happy with their parrty's leadership, even at the nadir of party fortunes. As soon as a selection has been made by party leaders, primary voters are generally glad to endorse it.
Howard Dean's Internet support and Dick Gephardt's union backing are just the latest attempts to get around this truth. Like their predecessors, they didn't work because most voters just want to know who their nominee is so that they can support him.
So why bother with primaries? They're massively wasteful of time, money, and energy that could be devoted to supporting Senator Kerry (in this case). You think he couldn't use some of the roughly $150 million that Democrats have spent this cycle? Or that a 60-year-old man less than a year from prostate surgery wouldn't appreciate a break from the rubber-chicken circuit?
So my modest proposal is this: The DNC (and RNC) should simply announce, when they've made up their minds, who they want the nominee to be. That person is then crowned at the convention, which becomes a gala for rolling out the party platform and slogans, as well as a place for party enthusiasts to meet and greet each other.
"Primaries" may still be held, but they'll no longer have any influence on the nomination. This expands the groups that can hold such events: Not just states, but multistate conglomerates, parts of states, cities, interest groups, unions, whatever. They can hold straw polls with donations for each vote, caucuses where voters socially interact, or traditional votes. Interested candidates can participate to raise issues, to garner publicity for consideration by the party for future jobs or national candidacies, or simply to participate in the spectacle.
(Ironically, turnout in pre-primary days stood at 70 to 80 percent of eligible adults, compared to 50 percent today. Maybe, from a participation point of view, we would benefit from placing less pressure on people to "decide" the nominee, and more on promoting issues and just having fun.)
The traditional primary no longer serves its purpose. Let the smoke-filled rooms return.
