Some of you may recall that I was singing this tune during the primaries, out of frustration with the Bernie Sanders campaign. But Ezra Klein on Vox points out a much deeper danger to weak party elites than I saw then. He wrote what I’d consider the best election postmortem I’ve read thus far (and I’ve read many), even though he wrote it the day before the election:
Trump won in part because of protest against the elites. The plebs were tired of being fucked by the Liberal Elite, so they voted for Trump.
And that’s really fucking scary, because the elite (liberal or otherwise) is kind of important in a democracy like this.
Exactly.
There has to be a balance. Our whole system is built on checks and balances and it’s actually ingeniously designed and evolved. Right now we have an imbalance though. The GOP is run by an angry mob and the Democratic party is run by elites.
You might need stronger ongoing party organisations, but that’s not necessarily the same as “elites”.
One can’t really extrapolate from one country’s experience to another, but, for example, in the UK, party organisation has a more continuous presence and influence, over both candidate selection and (at least in opposition) policy development than seems to be the case in the US. Here, you don’t get to stand for anything unless the relevant party organisation has checked you out, and if it’s for Parliament, it’s quite a high-level process to decide whether you can go on the “approved” list and set about getting a constituency party to adopt you as their candidate. There’s also ongoing support, training and advice for people on the approved list, and those who hope to be: if a party decides it needs to do something about bringing on candidates from under-represented groups and interests, that’s the route that’s usually followed.
Of course, there are then tensions when the national party goes further, and tries to lean on local organisations so that they can “parachute in” a favoured potential star candidate, or to try to keep everyone “on message” (the Blairites in the Labour Party built up quite a back-up of resentments over that, but it did put an end to the old media narrative about Labour splits and disagreements). But it does tend to weed out the unstable and clueless.
I am calling for the return of the “smoke-filled room”, wherein the party brass review the people interested in running, and anoint three to five of them to run in the primaries. The candidates may or may not be the best people, but they will all be at least minimally competent.
This would avoid the “clown car” effect, where 18 candidates split the votes between them so that no one of them has enough traction to compete against the buffoon.
What might actually work is just to make all the primaries proportional, no winner take all. The large field primarily helped Trump by enabling him to win a lot of delegates while getting far short of a majority in a lot of states.
Shorten the entire proccess to six weeks would be a start .
No, I like the long period of vetting. If you think Americans are misinformed now, rush a campaign.
I’ll take my chances on the elites.
The overall message of Trump was also to go against the Republican elites too, of course if the real intention of Trump was to continue with the Republican elites fucking the plebs then we already do know who was stiffed by Trump. Many in the opposition to him expected that that was going to be the case.
You are quite correct.
I agree. Smoke-filled rooms and elites are not perfect, but our current process is neither more productive/beneficial nor any better at representing the will of the actual people.
But I’m not sure this is sufficient. When Trump and Sanders start crying about rigged elections the willingness of people to believe them is frightening. I think the bottom line is that people are remarkably ignorant about how the US government works. I spent two hours last night trying to explain the electoral college to a woman with an MBA and she still doesn’t get it. “But Hillary won the popular vote!” (Ironically, she didn’t even vote for Hillary - she went Libertarian.) You cannot have a serious discussion about anything when the majority of people don’t understand what is being discussed.
I find it rather difficult to believe someone with an MBA couldn’t grasp the Electoral College after a two-bour explanation. There’s nothing complicated about it.
On the Dem side, the elites are clearly pretty strong. They decided quite a while ago that it was Hillary’s turn at bat failing to even put up a decent sacrificial lamb for appearance sake. Well, maybe that was O’Malley’s job but nobody noticed. They’re lucky Sanders stuck his nise in to make it look like a real election.
The GOP lacks the strong elite influence on their candidate selection. But they won with a victory in the Senate elections too. They may not all be happy about him but it’s hard to argue with success.
It may be better for the country as a whole to have stronger elites but this election, weak elites trumped strong elites
Isn’t having strong party elites how Hillary was nominated as the Democratic candidate in the first place? Nobody wanted to primary against her. The elites had decreed that it was her turn.
The same thing happened to the GOP in '08 and '12 with McCain and Romney.
This year the GOP tripped all over their own cranks on the way to a nomination. Too many candidates and they couldn’t decide who would be establishment guy. Jeb? Rubio? Kasich? At the end of the day, Trump probably would have won even if it was a 1 on 1 race against any of the above. In a typical primary, whichever politician has the backing of the party elites also has the money and goes on to win. I don’t need to tell you that 2016 was not your typical GOP primary. A big mouth celebrity can out-shout a well financed politician.
And in theory, if your party nominates a shit candidate, they will lose the general election. In theory.
You either trust people to make their own decisions or you don’t. I don’t know how you look at the utter failure of Hillary and Bernie’s high support among the white working class who rejected her and conclude that the elites know what they’re talking about.
With the cabinet choices Trump is making the evidence is showing so far that no, Donald does not have a clue.
Yes… well… apparently she believes that she was voting directly for a Presidential candidate and that the candidate with the most votes wins. Information to the contrary must be wrong. :smack:
Did she genuinely not understand how it worked, or did she disagree with its wisdom as a system? Given your description, it’s unclear.
It’s perfectly clear that Trump won the electoral college. It’s also pretty clear that the last and next Republican who take office only do so because of the electoral college, that it’s twice rejected the will of people in favor of the will of acreage. It’s a terrible system, and the sooner we figure out how to rid our system of it, the better.
The idea that our democracy fails because of not enough elitism is absurd.