Jonathan Birge

Maybe love is too strong a word. I typically vote for Libertarians and the occasional Republican, and usually consider Democratic primaries like the political version of NASCAR: I don’t care who wins, but enjoy watching the crashes. However, the Republicans have lately forgotten their core values of limited and responsible government, and are spending like drunken sailors on shore leave (back when the dollar was worth something). The most decent man in the race, Ron Paul, was never even given a chance despite being the only one of the lot who actually understands economics or the concept of a republic. On the other hand, the Libertarian party is starting to get on my nerves, as it’s increasingly clear they will never get their act together and be anything more than a loose federation of ineffective idealists drowned out by a core of anti-government shack dwellers who don’t understand the first thing about classical liberalism but simply don’t like paying taxes. Finally, through the dishonesty and mismanagement of decades of administrations BOTH Democrat and Republican (don’t listen to anybody so simple-minded as to tell you that all of our problems are due entirely to Bush) our country is in the worst shape anybody in my generation has ever seen, in virtually every arena possible. You can thank the Bushes for the wars, of course, but you can thank Carter and Clinton for the lax lending policies that were meant to help poor people get homes but ended up turning the middle class into real estate speculators. And we can thank the lot of them for a corrupt government that bails out corporations and throws subsidies at politically powerful industries, devolving us into a perverse version of capitalism where taypayers take on the risks and the owners of capital still reap the profits.

The upside to things being so dire is that they are, in many ways, clarified. In truth, there is much low hanging fruit which honest politicians of any ideology should agree need to be fixed: earmarks, tort reform, corporate welfare, border security, massive government redundancy and inefficiency, etc. People may differ on approaches to economic theory, but I think it’s safe to say that hardly anybody thinks corruption and graft is a good form of government.

From all the partisan rancor, however, you’d think other than baseball steroids and Tibet, all the problems we face are of inscrutable complexity and hopelessly nuanced. But all the partisan heat is just part of the divide and conquer strategy employed by our “leaders” on both sides. Like clever sleight of hand sharps who get you to look at what the Right hand is doing while the Left hand is taking your watch, they hope that if they convince you their opponent is evil, you’ll fail to notice they’re not much better.

At this point, whether or not we have universal health care pales in comparison to whether or not we return to being a society with integrity. It is a common mistake and conceit to think if only we have the right system of government with the right laws, all else will fall into place if we just sit back and watch. This applies to those that think all will be right if we only have more socialism, as well as to those that think more laisez faire capitalism will automatically cure our ills. A government only applies rewards and forces, or the lack thereof. It is a force, not a fate. What matters more, above all, is the value system and cultural dynamics of the people under that government. Capitalism may enable great things, but it is a guarantee of nothing without a society composed of individuals who take responsibility for themselves and their neighbors, and who are thus capable of operating with the trust necessary for free trade to work. Capitalism is merely the absence of interfering artifice, in some sense, and the exposure to natural restoring forces; it will punish a society that does not treat its members with respect and fairness in the long run, but it will not inherently cause anybody to change themselves. On the other side of the idealogical spectrum: to the extent that socialism represents the will of the people to help each other, it is unnecessary, and to the extent that it represents an essential collective coercion of individual actions, it is unsustainable in the long run. I don’t mean to equivocate between socialism and capitalism; that matter is for another time. My point is simply that in either case, the notion that our destiny is in our system is a fallacy. It is in our culture, and a government can either be a road or a bog, but the private sector is the only thing that can do the driving.

(more…)

A recent article in the Washington Post talks about the fact that, as I mentioned earlier, the “Democratic” race will end up being decided by superdelegates at the convention in Denver. Most disturbingly, uncommitted superdelegates who are leaning towards Clinton are starting to make noises suggesting that they will be comfortable overriding the will of the people if the final numbers are close (which they will be):

But Oregon Secretary of State Bill Bradbury said that if there is no clear leader, he is prepared to exercise his judgment. “If the pledged-delegate total is within 100 votes or whatever, I don’t think there’s a great deal of significance in that,” said Bradbury, who also represents other secretaries of state as a superdelegate.

He added: “I just believe that the determining factor for superdelegates shouldn’t be, ‘Well, 49 percent voted for Hillary and 51 percent voted for Obama, and that decides it for us.’ Sorry, but that’s not how it works.”

Actually, that’s exactly how it works. Does the DNC, of all people, need a refresher course on Democracy? After the flap they made after the 2000 election, you’d think not. And yet on last weekend’s Meet the Press, Ed Rendell weighed in with his justification for making a joke of the Democratic primary:

…the governor of Pennsylvania and a Clinton supporter, countered by arguing that “the traditional role of the superdelegates is to determine who’s going to be our strongest candidate.”

Tradition is an interesting choice of words for a system that was invented in the 1980s to put power back in the hands of the party elite. But regardless, wouldn’t the strongest candidate be Obama by any rational measure? He polls better against McCain than Clinton, has more support from moderate Republicans and independents, and doesn’t have the historically high negatives of Clinton. Is it possible that Rendell is not, in fact, looking out for the best interests of the party and country, but is looking out for himself?

What’s amazing is that for all the handwringing about this, nobody in “the party of the people” has floated the idea that maybe having superdelegates isn’t such a super idea. Why do the Democrats always manage to leave themselves with outs when it comes to democracy?

Having the superdelegates choose the candidate means the decision will be tied to political debts owed, and more importantly, favors promised them by the candidate they choose. In other words, a brokered convention favors the established and the dishonest. That is to say, it favors Hillary.

For all the righteous (and understandable) complaining the Democratic party makes over the Electoral College system, you’d think they’d let the popular vote determine their primary system. In fact, they instead use a system that is even less democratic than the Electoral College by employing “superdelegates” who are allowed to vote for anybody. Superdelegates are party leaders and other members of the Democratic party establishment, and they comprise about 800 of the roughly 4000 total delegates. So, about 20% of the delegates aren’t democraticaly allocated!

Given the closeness of the Hillary/Obama race, it’s highly likely that the final decision will not be in the hands of the people, but in the hands of the party establishment, which is largely controlled by the Clintons who have far better Washington connections. They already have nearly double the so-far pledged superdelegates than are in Obama’s camp, and if that proportion continues, the superdelegate system will spot Hillary a 6% advantage over Obama. This is a significant handicap in a race whose national poll margins are less than that. The process is pretty much preordained in her favor.Besides being patently undemocratic, the system also presents a pragmatic problem. With 700 superdelegates outstanding and unpredictable, it takes that much longer for a clear winner to emerge. All of this makes the Republican’s penchant for winner-take-all primaries look rather smart, actually. While McCain is busy already starting on his national campaign and closing rank with other Republicans, the Democrats are still locked in a divisive internal fight. At the rate they are going, this will continue all the way to their convention with neither side attaining enough delegates to ensure victory. The superdelegate system is thus handing the Republicans a distinct advantage, and its hard to chide the Republican party for their winner-take-all system when at least 95% of their delegates are determined by actual voters.

The superdelegate system was created to allow party officials to retain significant power over the nominee, preventing the people from choosing somebody the party deems unworthy or unelectable. While the wisdom of that is questionable, given that polls show Obama to be more electable than Hillary, it doesn’t even apply here. In the end, the superdelegate system appears to be just more of the same corrupt, self-dealing Washington establishment politics. The more ambitious of the superdelegates will use their power to buy their way into the administration of the eventual winner. This is why so many of them have not yet commited either way; they are biding their time, waiting for more clarity on who that will be before they make their pitch.

When the Democratic party doesn’t choose its own candidates democratically, it’s no wonder people are disenchanted with politics. And I’m guessing the superdelegate system isn’t something to which Hillary plans to “bring change” if elected.