The extraordinary Republican primary battle has forced me to
brood more extensively about the formal structure of the American political system
than I have ever done before. I find
myself particularly puzzled about how to think about the dispute between Donald
Trump and Reince Priebus. [Was it
Aristotle or was it Plato who said that shit does not have a form? How can a Trump-Priebus dispute possibly give
rise to thoughts worthy of a sentient being?]
As my American readers will know, Trump is arguing that the
candidate who gets the most votes and has the most delegates coming into the
Convention should be awarded the nomination.
The Stop Trump forces are saying that so long as Trump lacks a majority
on the first ballot, his claim on the nomination can be nullified by the votes
of the freed-up delegates on the second and subsequent ballots. And so on.
Here is what has me puzzled.
Political Parties in the United States are, in the eyes of the law,
private organizations, not public or even quasi-public entities [I think this
is right.] Parties are continuing
organizations that exist presumably for the purpose of advancing some
determinate political policies or a political vision by electing local, state,
and federal representatives who will then use the resources and legal powers of
government to implement those policies or that vision. To be sure, American political parties,
unlike those in many European or Asian countries, tend to be broad aggregations
of regional, racial, religious, economic and other interests, but at any given
time, it is possible to identify some core political orientation that
characterizes the party.
It seems reasonable therefore that a party should refuse to nominate
as its presidential candidate someone who does not at all represent what the party
at that time stands for. I mean, suppose
Bernie Sanders had announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination and, mirabile dictu had started winning
Republican primaries. Would the Republican
Party really not have the right to “ignore the will of the voters” and bar him
by some arcane rule change from hi-jacking the party? Would the Democratic Party really not have
the same right if a bona fide
Republican – say Hillary Clinton – were to attempt pull off the same trick on
it?
I invite your thoughtful responses.
7 comments:
Plato. The Parmenides?
Maybe he could win both nominations and run as a consensus candidate of the dispossessed.
Each political party has the right to refuse to nominate the majority candidate, for exactly the reasons you cite. But considering that the only two viable parties do not serve the interests of their constituents, they ought not exercise that right when the majority candidate is far better suited in that regard. In this political climate, exercising the right to refuse a majority candidate who best serves the interests of party constituents is much akin to exercising the right to refuse sharing one's water during a drought. Trump serves only himself. So the Republicans have a good case against nominating him. But the Democrats would not have such a case against Bernie, were he to receive a majority.
Post a Comment