Direct election means campaigning, and campaign fundraising, and the people who seek to influence politicians expect results. Paul Mirengoff notes that might include the sort of people who argue with, but generally vote for, Democrats. "Another possible explanation, and the two aren’t mutually exclusive, is that the left-wing donors on whom Democrats rely demanded that [Senate majority leader Chuck] Schumer make a last stand." That despite some of the other people whose votes the donors require possibly tanking their careers as a consequence.
Schumer forced a number of vulnerable Democrats to vote against the filibuster. Among the vulnerable Dems who did so were Sens. Mark Kelly, Maggie Hassan, Michael Bennet, and Catherine Cortez-Masto. One could add the two Georgia Democrats to the list, although Raphael Warnock was probably quite happy to cast his vote and Jon Ossoff isn’t up for reelection this year. (Schumer also caused Sinema to vote for the filibuster, which did her no favors. However, she’s probably finished at the end of her term in 2024 anyway, and I doubt Schumer wants to do her favors.)I hope there are some libertarian populist Republicans in Arizona and Georgia thinking of ways to put forth candidates who aren't Trumpian crazies to replace Kelly, Sinema, Warnock, and Ossoff. We were talking about two system failures, though.
The second system failure, also originating in the so-called Progressive Era, is the party primary. There's a tradeoff at work. State governments like open primaries, the better to bundle some local general elections and referenda with the state and federal party primaries, and the party bosses prefer to have only the believers advising as to the nominees.
The tension between the party establishments and the state governments, which manage the primary elections, is of long standing. There's a passage in Theodore White's 1960 Making of the President about how crossover voting "verges on anarchy." Maybe that's not so good for the party establishments, but if they had their way, wouldn't they prefer to be rid of primaries and caucuses?That might still be the case even if the primary brings out a lot of true believers in pocket boroughs. That might be what was on Mr Schumer's mind. "Schumer is terrified that he’ll be challenged by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and the decisions he’s making as majority leader reflect that fear." Gosh, will lightning strike me down if I suggest that choosing a party's nominee for the Senate comes down to placating that docked tail of party True Believers in a few precincts in New York City, in what is often a low-turnout election, even if bundled with local elections for school board, cable commissioner, or dog-catcher. What could be less democratic than having current office holders behaving so as to stave off a primary challenge from a small tranche of the polity, whether that's the "progressive left" pushing the Donks or the "faith and flag" conservatives pushing the Pachs? In New York, will the resulting senator really be able to represent the interests of the entire state, including the urban poor, the information technology workers, the remaining farmers, and contractors, in what is a very large state? Note that the other senator from New York, Kirsten "second phoniest member" Gillibrand, who took one set of stances in the House and another (so much "opportunist tacking") to run for Senate. It's possible that either of New York's current senators would have made the cut under the pre-Seventeenth Amendment method of being put forth by the state legislature. Neither, though, would have to tack so opportunistically to the metro True Believers, and the country might have been spared much of the pain Mr Schumer has put it through in the past year.
No comments:
Post a Comment