Something worth supporting in 2024 – Chris Stirewalt

After the election, members of the House and Senate meet in their caucuses, discussing behind closed doors who will lead their teams. In most democracies, national leaders are elected in the same way as House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer: The people elect the party in power, and the party elects its leader.

Mexico, Argentina, Chile, and some other countries that have modeled their governments on the American model have variants of direct election of their main executive bodies, but these are exceptions worldwide. Even in the United States, we filter the election through the Electoral College, which is designed to moderate majoritarianism by promoting geographic and regional consensus, not just public opinion.

But America is not only more democratic than most other countries because we prefer to elect our head of government almost directly, but we have also practiced direct democracy over the last 50 years in selecting the candidates that the parties put forward in the first place. American voters can not only choose who should be head of state and head of government, since the 1970s voters here have also been able to determine who can compete for the big job.

There are many things that make America unique and wonderful. When the rest of the world decided to measure the weather in degrees Celsius, our country decided to use a Fahrenheit system where 100 is very hot and zero is very cold, as opposed to a system where 100 is hotter than any temperature ever recorded in nature and zero is just pretty cool. Iced drinks, smiling at strangers, free speech, the McRib – there are many unusual things that make America great.

If only we could say that the primaries were one of them.

In The Federalist Papers, No. 10, James Madison argues that political factions are an inevitable byproduct of liberty. If people are free to speak, associate, and band together at will, they will inevitably take sides against each other. “Liberty is to factions what air is to fire.”

Since freedom is indispensable, he argued that to “cure the evils of faction” it is better to control its effects than to eliminate its causes. The first and most important part of this work has been accomplished within the framework of our constitutional republic itself: sharing power, guaranteeing rights, protecting the voice of minorities, etc.

But the second, almost equally important part happens in the factions themselves. Democracy traditionally takes place between the parties, not within them. Constituency loyalty, clientelism, party bosses, and smoke-filled rooms are not a pleasant prospect, but they served well to moderate voters’ passions. When parties functioned like other private institutions, such as corporations, unions, and civic groups, they were not very democratic, but their leaders were usually heavily invested in the proliferation, stability, and success of the institutions themselves.

Today we have weak parties where the voters are the only real bosses. Beginning with the backlash against party bossing in the 1968 Democratic nomination, intensified by the push for transparency and democracy after Watergate in the 1970s, and culminating in the crackdown on party fundraising in the 1990s, America took a boldly progressive direction in party politics: more direct democracy, tighter regulation, and tough anti-corruption measures.

The results were, frankly, miserable.

Because America is much more democratic than most of our Western counterparts, the parties themselves played a more significant role in intervening between the momentary passions of the people and the practical application of government authority. Rather than leaving the choice of our top leaders to legislators elected behind closed doors, we used to put that role in the hands of party bosses, who were chosen by their fellow party members early in the process.

Now we have two rounds of direct elections and little to calm voters’ tempers — and the fires of partisanship have been burning out of control for some time. We see it in a Congress paralyzed by fear of primary voters and obsessed with “message” legislation that aims to appease or stoke anger rather than achieve any policy goals.

For a long time, the residual power of the parties and the expense and hassle of running for president prevented the worst effects of passionate partisan nonsense from overturning the election of our top officials. But technological advances overtook us. Direct democracy became so coupled with direct communication and direct fundraising that the remaining remnants of the old system could not stem the tide.

If you’re reading this, there’s a good chance you agree with the arguments against partisan primaries as a means of selecting candidates. But surely you’re familiar with them. In the world of politics, we’ve been grappling with the question of party viability for much of this century.

But imagine if you were not someone who was interested in the history of intra-party bickering. What if you never heard about the impact of the McCain-Feingold Act and the Citizens united Decision, that is, ever? What if you viewed parties and politics as necessary evils that require your attention in even-numbered years but that you should otherwise largely avoid? That is, what if you were a normal person?

How would you react to the fact that our major parties have put forward two candidates for this presidential election that most people wouldn’t let run a banana stand unsupervised? When the Republicans put forward a convicted felon who tried to swindle his way to a second term and the Democrats put forward an obviously frail 81-year-old, it becomes clear to even the casual politician that there is something seriously wrong with our system.

Partisans of both parties will struggle to make a convincing case for their candidates, and tens of millions of ordinary voters will simply shrug, remember that the other side is probably worse, and stick with their home team. But these candidates offer the opportunity to make positive persuasion… for a better system for selecting their successors.

I would prefer that the parties return to a system of conventions and delegates that ranges from local to regional to state to national, but maybe you like something else: ranked-choice primaries, general primaries for the top two candidates, etc. Whatever you want, the next time someone bemoans the fact that in a nation of 333 million souls we’re down to just these two guys, don’t just nod in agreement. Instead, tell them – quickly and clearly – why that is and why you want reform.

Something good should come out of this demolition derby of democracy, so Americans should get serious about repairing their parties. If we don’t learn the right lessons from 2024, things are unlikely to be any better next time.