Super Tuesday came and went, but did little to clarify the Democratic Party's dilemma over its Presidential nomination.

 

Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama did well with their respective constituencies.  To put it in the simplest way, she won the big states and he won the small states.  There are more small states than large ones, but the bigger states have more votes.  He won a lot of red (Republican) states, she won the key blue (Democratic) states.  What does that mean?  Who knows?

 

Democratic national chairman Howard Dean was on television the other night urging the major candidates to decide on the nomination well before the convention in late August.   He said he did not want to see a 'brokered convention'.   That statement showed a profound lack of awareness of American history, in which conventions have had a significant role.

 

Abraham Lincoln, a one-term congressman from Illinois, would never have been nominated for the Presidency in 1860 by the Republican Party if there had not been a convention.  The same is true of Woodrow Wilson, the Democratic candidate in 1912.   It is valid to a lesser extent for John F. Kennedy in 1960, because by then conventions were losing ground to state primaries.

 

A hundred years ago, political conventions were gatherings of party leaders, who nominated candidates on the basis of who was most likely to win, and with whom each delegate had the best relationships.   Financial considerations probably also played a part in the selection process, along with ideological ones (e.g. views on the tariff).

 

In the latter part of the 20th century, the convention process was deemed to be undemocratic, in that ordinary voters were excluded. State primaries multiplied, in which members of the party (or in some states, independents as well) chose the delegates to the national convention and those delegates were bound (in varying degrees of fealty) to particular candidates under whose banner they competed..

 

Of course, circumstances change between primary day and the convention.   Some candidates withdraw, or suspend their campaigns, if they do not do well in early or later primaries.  Their delegates are consequently freed to do what they or their masters think is best.

 

The novelty in the 2008 primary season was the race to be the earliest state to choose..   New York and California had traditionally had June primaries, which was close to the end of the nominating season.  If the winner was by that time apparent as a result of earlier primaries, the states which had not yet voted became inconsequential.  No promises to those delegates, either of jobs or of public works in their state.

 

Therefore most of the states advanced their primaries to February, the first month they were allowed by the party leaders to be held, except for four specific states which had traditionally had early primaries: They were Iowa. which had caucuses and not a direct primary, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.  These four states were located in different regions, the midwest, northeast, south and west.

 

Two other states, Florida and Michigan, adopted legislation providing for January primaries, but the Democratic Party said it would refuse to seat any delegates selected at a primary which did not conform to the party-adopted timetable.  The Party directed candidates not to campaign in the rebellious states, who believed that the states, not the parties, should be the ones to decide when their citizens should vote in primary elections.  What gall!

 

Now we are in the midst of primary season. About thirty states have voted, twenty remain.  A large delegation to be chosen in June is Puerto Rico, which will have 63 delegates at the Democratic convention, who vote as a bloc.  It is a real possibility that, in a close race, the Puerto Rican delegation will decide who will be the Democratic candidate for President of the United States.  If that turns out to be the case, it will not help the Democratic cause in November, when the fifty states, voting through the electoral college, will choose the 44th president. Yes, we know the electors vote to elect the President 41 days later, but the people select the electors on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. (Nov. 2-8)

 

A candidate to be that 44th president, Governor Huckabee said Tuesday night that he was the 44th Governor of the State of Arkansas.  One Governor of Arkansas, also from the town of Hope, was elected President in 1992.  This year the former first lady of Arkansas is a leading candidate.  It may take divine intervention for Huckabee to win the presidency, but who is more likely to bring that about than a Baptist minister.

While we think of reverends, the rise of Barack Obama has served, incidentally, to diminish the importance of two men of the cloth who are very prominent African-Americans.  It was the Reverend Jesse Jackson, father of Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. of Illinois, who first advocated the use of the term "African-American" for persons of color. He also ran for President twice.   It was the Reverend Al Sharpton of New York, who overcame his involvement with Tawana Brawley case to emerge as an articulate and effective spokesman in cases where he found racial injustice. He ran unsuccessfully for Senator from New York and mayor of New York City (he lost to Ruth Messinger in 1997, who in turn lost to Mayor Giuliani).

But both clergymen's eminence in the African-American has been eclipsed to some extent by the popularity of Barack Obama, wo appeals to both races.  Obama was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review, which to some is comparable, making allowance for age, if not to the Presidency, at least, to Congress.

It is an unusual circumstance that both major Democratic candidates are lawyers who are married to outspoken spouses who were their classmates at law school.  The Clintons are Yale Law '73 (she was, of course, Hillary Rodham, a Wellesley grad)) and the Obamas are Harvard Law '91 (she was Michelle Robinson, a Princeton alumna).  There is nothing wrong with any of that, and in fact it is terrific to have leaders who are well educated and show an early interest in public service (kindergarten?).

There is, however, some degree of irony in the standard-bearers of the party of the less privileged coming from quite a different background.  Nonetheless, their fine education is an achievement of the young people themselves, they did not have extremely wealthy parents, the two men were raised by single mothers for much of their childhood..

Their backgrounds are a fine example of the American dream.

 

This does not in any way detract from the background of Senator John Sidney McCain, III, (Mac is back - his slogan after Super Tuesday).  McCain's father and paternal grandfather were both admirals in the United States Navy, and the senator is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis. It is widely known that McCain was a prisoner of war in Vietnam for five and one half years, declining early release which had been offered because of his pedigree in the officer corps in the navy.

We are not as familiar with the Rev. Huckabee's background.  He is a Baptist minister who served ten and one-half years as Governor of Arkansas, and lost one hundred pounds before he started campaigning for President.  He is therefore a model of self-control.  He has a warm, folksy manner and is not a hell-and-brimstone preacher.  On the campaign trail, he is said to have become friendly with McCain and developed a dislike for Romney.

These are much more interesting races, on both sides, than we had four years ago.  One of the candidates has to win, and possibly two, if their considerable egos allow them to run on the same ticket.  Remember Kennedy-Johnson in 1960.  

 

If you are dissatisfied with the quadrennial process by which we choose our leaders, think of other countries and how fortunate we are.

We do not rely on parliamentary majorities which can be broken at any time by a dissatisfied party leader, no snap elections followed by five-year terms, our disputes settled by the Supreme Court rather than by force of arms, and the loser is free to run next time and possibly be elected. (e.g., Richard Nixon, lost in 1960, Ronald Reagan, lost the Republican nomination to Ford in 1976, and John McCain, lost the Republican nomination to Bush 43 in 2000.)

#446 2.7.2008 1407wds