Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders launched insurgent political
campaigns against their respective political parties; Trump against the
RNC and Sanders against the DNC. Trump won, and Bernie lost. Trump won
because, quite simply, the rules of the Republican Party were
"democratic." Bernie lost because the rules of the Democratic Party were
not.
Now in both cases, one could argue that the
reason things are where they are is more nuanced than that. Okay, but
understand this; the GOP and the Democratic Party are non-governmental
organizations. They write the rules for how nominees for offices up and
down the ticket are chosen. If you don't like those rules, tough. Get
involved in party politics and change them. Otherwise, you'll have to
live by them.
Bernie Sanders' Failed Insurgency
Bernie
Sanders, an independent, launched a bid to grab the Democratic Party by
the throat and choke the moderate out of it. Sanders called for
economic policies specifically targeted at reducing the gap between the
top 1% and the other 99% of Americans -- expand social security, make
public college tuition free, provide paid family and medical leave and
universal health care, increase the minimum wage, implement a youth jobs
program, and, with all the money that's left over, institute a trillion
dollar program to rebuild America's crumbling infrastructure. Sanders
had
ways to pay for all of this.
They all amounted to essentially the same thing -- tax the rich. So, in
political terms, Bernie was trying to hijack the Democratic Party and
make it a Social Democratic Party.
Conservatives and
even moderate democrats, immediately saw Bernie Sanders' objective for
what it was -- a redistribution of wealth. Duh! How does one reduce the
gap between really, really rich people, and all the rest of us? You take
the land from the rich landowners and you parcel it out to poor
farmers. Then you watch as your country goes broke and your people go
hungry. Hey, it's politics -- hyperbole is
de rigueur. In any case, this is the conservative worldview.
There
were a lot of young people who resonated with Bernie Sanders' messianic
message and his passion, and his powdery snow hair. The problem was,
they hadn't really participated in party politics before "feeling the
Bern." Because they hadn't 'infiltrated' the party, their revolution was
doomed from the beginning. Had they been in leadership positions in the
DNC, they could've eliminated or at least reduced the number of
superdelegates. Because, as the Pew Research Center has said, "
superdelegates are the embodiment of the institutional Democratic Party –
everyone from
former presidents, congressional leaders and big-money fundraisers to
mayors, labor leaders and longtime local party functionaries." These
party faithful didn't want an outsider taking over 'their' party and
because they'd prepared for just such a contingency, they were able to
prevent it.
|
The Democratic Party's Superdelegates |
Donald J Trump's Successful Insurgency
The GOP has many fewer superdelegates than the
Democrats -- 250 or 7% vs the Democratic Party's 713 or 15%. In the Republican Party, the only people who get
superdelegate status are the three members of each state's national
party. The more important distinction, however, as
Seth Millstein has pointed out,
is that Republican
superdelegates do not have the freedom to vote for whichever candidate
they please. The RNC ruled in 2015 that their
superdelegates must vote for the candidate that their state voted for.
In effect, the GOP is more democratic than the Democratic Party. Is this
a good thing?
If the GOP had convened in Cleveland
with as many superdelegates as the Democratic Party had, and if the
rules permitted them to vote their conscience, and assuming they had
such, would Donald Trump have emerged as the Republican Nominee?
Hopefully, not.
As
Jeff Greenfield wrote,
There are some circumstances where the “will of the voters”—often the will of a plurality
of voters—may well put the party on the road to a massive political
defeat. Further, it may result in the nomination of a candidate who
violates the most fundamental beliefs of that party. Or whose
temperament and character might put a dangerous, unfit person into the
Oval Office. Under those circumstances, the existence of a bloc of
superdelegates means the presence of an “emergency brake,” a last chance
to avoid disaster. And while it may be “undemocratic” in the narrowest
sense of that term, our political system is replete with “undemocratic”
elements that have served us very well.
Nate Silver's
FiveThirtyEight
now forecasts the chances of Donald Trump winning the 2016 presidential
election as 12.5%. The same poll forecasts that the GOP has a 72%
chance of losing the Senate. What happens to the Republican Party after
the election depends on what the Republican Party leadership does now.
Republicans cannot have their party and let Trump eat it, too.
Republican
leaders in the House and Senate must stop fighting this pusillanimous,
rearguard action, and launch a frontal attack against the Trump
insurgency. If they don't decisively distance themselves now from 'The
Donald,' the Grand Old Party will go the way of the 'Know-Nothings,' a
fate they will justly deserve. What the American people won't deserve is
what may replace the GOP -- a neo-fascist amalgamation of all the worst
elements of Donald Trump's constituency.