The OLD Philosopher – John M. Miller
Back in “the good old days,” especially when television news was coming into its own in the Fifties and Sixties, the two major American political parties used to decide on their presidential candidates in so-called (or actual) “smoke-filled rooms” at the party national conventions. When the party leaders had made their choice, we found out who the candidate was by watching that party’s national convention. For the good of the American republic, we need to go back to that system.
The parties are the ones who have to work with our presidents. “The people” don’t do that. Were the parties rather than the primary voters to decide on the party candidates, they would need to give very careful consideration to which candidate would best represent their interests to the public. Would their candidate get along well with members of the opposition party in Congress?
Planning how best to find consensus with the other party instead of always ideologically opposing the other party would be a very novel concept in modern American politics. It could go a long way toward dissipating our political polarity.
Presidential primaries are a colossal waste of money. Hundreds of millions of dollars are expended, and the parties have no control over who spends what for whom. What kind of a way is that to run a political party? It is anarchistic politics.
Contemporary presidential primaries also allow far too many candidates to run. In the 2016 election, seventeen Republican presidential candidates ran in the primaries, and the least qualified one won. For 2020, there have been twenty-four Democratic candidates (depending on how you count). Because of the early Iowa and New Hampshire primaries, and now also Nevada and South Carolina, it is utterly unpredictable until mid-to-late spring who shall probably triumph. Yet again, in 2020 the least qualified candidate may become the victor.
With individual voters determining the candidates for president rather than the parties, the candidate chosen by “the people” may conceivably be the worst possible person to represent the party’s core values. To state it differently, presidential primaries may guarantee that the candidate who gains the most votes in the convention might likely lose that party’s election for president.
Contemporary presidential primaries have rendered contemporary politics too tawdry and toxic. The process prolongs the agony of the decision far too long for the mental and political health of the nation. By the time the two parties have their quadrennial conventions, too many of us are too disgusted with nearly every candidate that we feel no genuine zeal for any candidate.
There would be another ancillary benefit of abolishing presidential primaries. It would negate 24/7 news networks from bombarding us with so much repetitious news that it makes us want to regurgitate. We might then not need to have news thrust at us 24/7. Instead we could quietly sit and read newspapers and news magazines, which would likely be a welcome change for most voters.
“Hot” media tend to fry our brains; “cooler” media encourage the exercise of our brains. Furthermore, the vetting of the cooler print media is more accurate, because editors and writers have more time to certify the complete validity of their stories.
Presidential primaries have placed too much power in the hands of amateur voters and has snatched too much power away from politicians. To the Democratic and Republican Parties: for our own good and yours, take away the presidential primaries - - - please!
John Miller is Pastor of The Chapel Without Walls on Hilton Head Island, SC. More of his writings may be viewed at www.chapelwithoutwalls.org.