What's
Primary
Next week some New Yorkers will get to vote, and yes, we agree,
it's hard to get excited about the March 2 primary (noon -till
9 PM, at your usual polling place). Still, we hope those who
can participate in it will. With primaries it only looks like
we vote for candidates; actually we vote for delegates to
a national convention. It's a system much like and about as
relevant as the electoral college - itself conceived before
political parties or national campaigns - and which should
probably have been constitutionally dumped long before WW
I and women's suffrage rolled around.
But with convention slates, just like with the electoral college,
most people just plain don't like giving up whatever influence
they've got. And so, while political conventions will probably
continue just as they always have, we're also stuck with an
electoral college where the anti-federalist tensions of Jefferson's
day continue to help us decide who'll run the country. As
a result of course, in the last presidential race we had one
candidate who won the vote but lost the election, and another
who was effectively appointed president by the honorable but
political appointees of the Supreme Court. Even if you liked
the way things worked out that time, honestly, it's not the
way it should have happened, right? So call it whatever you
want, but we think when it comes to picking a president, every
vote in every town and city and state in America should count
the same. That, we think, should be primary, though it probably
never will be.
We all know that at every level of government, our electoral
process has got its problems, starting with the mother's milk
of public governance, money and the influence it buys. That's
why Howard Dean, a doctor and former small-state governor,
had a real impact on the national dialogue in his losing cause,
with his message that individual citizens need to take control
of our political process from corporate and other special
interest groups. Dean of course became instantly unelectable
when CNN replayed over 600 times his brief display of bravado
on losing the Iowa caucuses, turning his candidacy into an
overnight national joke. But his message did resonate briefly,
and we hope it won't be lost.
Also deemed by the voters not-electable was Dick Gephardt,
suggesting that no matter how much experience you've got or
how loud you crank the message up, the reality is that the
appearance of boring is just not that easy to overcome. General
Wesley Clark, probably the finest candidate to ever not-specifically
run for the office of vice-president, handled himself well
enough we hope he'll be given that chance at the Democratic
convention. He may not be the slickest politician in American
history, but we think he's trustworthy. Joe Lieberman's
campaign we just didn't understand, but Kucinich's we did
and we respect, and his ideas on national health care are
worth consideration. And to the surprise of many folks who
thought they'd never listen to the guy, Al Sharpton's been
straight and on-his-message and has shown the best sense of
humor of anybody in the race.
But for Democrats voting in next week's primary, the choice
comes down to two good US Senators and each voter's personal
assessment of who's the better candidate in November's election.
Their positions on nearly everything are very close, John
Kerry's got a substantial record in the national arena, solid
international experience, and bona fide war hero status.
Edwards is a poised underdog, a self-made guy from roots people
can relate to, and a very good speaker with a television
presence that makes people think of a southern JFK. Kerry
of course is the odds-on bet, but however it goes, neither
will have an easy road ahead. President Bush has two wars
under his belt, both at least partially successful, probably
the best, most professional media team that's ever served
a president, and most important, the Dow Jones index pushing
11,000. Whatever happens at the Democrat's convention this
summer, it's going to be a tough flight for their nominee,
with or without Ralph Nader standing on the tarmac, sighting
down a shoulder-fired missile at his chances.
Despite the crisis of confidence in our democracy that many
felt in the wake of the last presidential election, few things
have changed that might help cut the cynicism with which many
view the process. It's reasonable to assume we'll see the
usual irregularities of every sort this fall, from intimidation
of voters to problem ballots of types seen and unseen before,
and cases where votes are counted subjectively or not at all.
In one of those ironic instances where the solution may be
worse than the problem, we've also got increased electronic
voting on the near horizon. Unfortunately, according to many
of those who understand it best, it seems like, if anything,
it's more likely to increase instead of decrease the chances
of manipulation and election fraud.
But to us, what's really primary is that everyone keep showing
up for the process, that we all listen critically to what's
being said, and that on those few occasions when we actually
can vote, we do. Hopefully beforehand, we'll have made it
our business to understand why things are as they are, how
they might be different, and who's likely to be seeing things
in ways that make sense to us. We think it's worth trying
to make even a small difference when we can, like voting in
a primary, perhaps if only because there's not many other
options we could rationalize. That's not exactly inspirational,
but we still figure any part of choosing the future we'll
share is worth showing up for now.
