Now that we are fully four months into the 2008 presidential election season, armchair goo-goos (good government types) have managed to develop a national narrative about the structure of the process that centers on three major complaints:
- There is too much money in the process. In order to compete, candidates must now raise far more money than in the past, and they must also refuse to participate in the old, partial public financing system. This also unnaturally narrows the field to a handful of candidates early in the process.
- Frontloading is dangerous to democracy. With so many states lining up to hold primaries on February 5th, both the Republican and Democratic nominations will be decided too quickly. Most primary voters will not have much time to evaluate the candidates before Super Tuesday, and the well financed candidates who can afford a nationwide campaign will have a decided advantage.
- The campaign starts too early, and takes too long. Everyone complains about this, at least in public. We are regularly told it is way too early to see this much focus on the 2008 presidential election. Even Bill Clinton complained about this recently.
All three of these complaints were recently summarized in
a New Yorker article by Hendrik Hertzberg:
This development has two aspects, both of which have been widely deplored. One is the bunching of primaries, which magnifies the need to raise very big money very early, pretty much guarantees that dark horses will stay dark, and makes it harder for someone to enter the race late. The other is the time gap between de-facto nomination in February and de-jure election in November--as lengthy as a full-term pregnancy, and offering similar opportunities for fatigue, boredom, irritability, and nausea (in addition, of course, to ample chances for joy, kicks, and that certain glow).(...)
The purity of that motive, however, does not obviate the fact that a schedule that (a) locks up both parties' nominations in one fell swoop and (b) requires the country to devote two out of every four years to Presidential politicking is completely insane.
Frankly, I have had enough of these complaints, and I am writing this post to call bullshit on all of them (except for the part about the need for public financing). The truth is, all of these supposed "good government" (goo-goo) complaints are based in a deep cynicism about the American populace and on the worthiness of political activism. Not to mention that there is an obvious contradiction at play. It really is just a bunch of whining, cynical bullshit. My complete rebuttal against these complaints can be found in the extended entry.
For starters, here are a few broad points:
- The campaign can't be both too long and too frontloaded. How can people complain about both frontloading and the campaign taking too long? Doesn't anyone wee the obvious contradiction in that complaint? If there has been intensive activist and media focus on the presidential election for a full year before Super Tuesday, then I think people have had plenty of time to make up their minds before entering the voting booth. In 2008, people will have more time than ever before to evaluate the candidates competing for the two major nominations. Then, because of frontloading, more people will have a say in determining the nominees than ever before. How is giving people more time to make up their minds, and then having more people meaningfully participate, bad for democracy in any way?
- Political activism and public engagement in the political process are both good things. Another aspect of these goo-goo complaints that really irritates me is that they all imply that political activism and public engagement in the political process are bad things. If you are arguing that the campaign is starting too early, you are also arguing that increased media attention on the political process, greatly increased political rally attendance, greatly increased small donor participation, greatly increased political volunteerism, and greatly increased public attention to political campaigns are somehow net negatives for American society. . Increased attention on the 2008 presidential campaign is not being driven by paid media, since virtually no candidates have run any paid media to this point. The fact is that the increased attention to the 2008 campaign is being generated primarily from the people-powered world of voluntary progressive activism and the renaissance of independent media that is the political blogosphere. That grassroots efforts are resulting in more available campaign information, and greater engagement in the political process, are both very good things for democracy, not bad things. I have a very, very hard time seeing the difference between complaining about the early start to the campaign and the increased, grassroots participation in the political process that we have encountered these past few years. Seriously--what is the difference between those two complaints right now? I can't figure it out. The reason the campaign is starting earlier is because more people are engaged in the campaign, period. Even if the increased attention to the campaign is being driven top-down by the media and political establishment, explain to me why it would be a negative that the media and political establishment are finally paying more attention to the political process instead of, say Anna Nichole Smith?
- The emergence of "darkhorse" candidates and late entries to the presidential race are not good things, in and of themselves. It is not necessarily good, not inherently a sign of a healthy democracy, that longshot candidates can come from the back of the pack to challenge the frontrunners late in the came. Signs of a healthy democracy include high voter participation, high voter knowledge, and a process that is fair to all participants. None of those require that darkhorse candidates come from behind and pull upsets that shock the world. While that might be a sign of an exciting NCAA tournament, or a nice plot for a political novel, there is nothing inherently good or democratic about those events. It is an aesthetic and emotional desire, not a requirement for a healthy democracy. A democracy can be just as healthy if the top two or three candidates slug it out from wire to wire. Just because a candidate is not among the leaders does not mean that the system is unfairly stacked against that candidate. It could also mean that candidate simply isn't very popular, or a very good campaigner.
Yes, there are problems with money and politics, but keep in mind that the candidates who have the most large donors also have the most small donors. Obama, Edwards and Clinton would still be the top three candidates in terms of money even if donations were capped at $250. In fact, both the money rankings and the polls on the Democratic side would be virtually identical even without the large donations. Besides, a longer campaign actually gives darkhorses more opportunities to emerge than would a short campaign. If the campaign season had not started until September, every single second tier candidate would already be finished and have no chance at the nomination whatsoever. However, now they all still have nine more months to make up the deficit they face.
- The American electorate is not a bunch of dupes for paid media. Another assumption at the core of these complaints is that the American electorate are a bunch of dupes who are easily swayed by the paid media campaigns of well-heeled candidates. Hogwash. In 2004, Bush and Kerry spent a combined $660M on the presidential campaign, and only 4.7% of the electorate changed their minds during the campaign. If money still really played such a decisive role in voting patterns, don't you think that maybe the $660,000,000, plus about twice that from outside groups, would have resulted in more than 4.7% of the voters changing their minds? Or maybe that instead of being roundly crushed, Howard Dean and Bill Bradley would have won the 2004 and 2000 Democratic nominations, since they each raised the most amount of money during their respective primary seasons? The fact is that voter behavior is determined less by campaign money now than it was in recent decades, and that is a good thing.
Now, I agree that there should be public financing of elections in a way that reduces the power of large donors over the political process. However, as I already noted, I don't think that would change the horserace complexion of the 2008 presidential race at all--it would just change the complexion of who has access to, and influence over, our candidates. Also, generally speaking, most media outlets neither adequately focus on the policy differences of candidates, nor upon cutting through campaign spin. However, most people don't vote based on policy minutia, and they never have. Yet further, while we do have a problem in America where too few of our citizens take an active role in the political process. However, if anything frontloading and the long campaign are helping alleviate that problem, not worsen it.
In summary, whatever problems there are in our democracy, I fail to see how frontloading or a long campaign exacerbates them in any way. If anything, frontloading and the long campaign are actually good things for our democracy. Grassroots political activism and increased public engagement in the political process are both good things. Giving the public more information on the candidates vying to hold our most important elected office, and more information on those candidates, are also good things for any democracy. Allowing more people to play a meaningful role in the political process is a good thing. It is pathetic and revealing to see supposed good government types complaining about these developments.
Finally, even after all of that is taken into account, inexpensive, early states are still just as available to every underfunded, longshot candidates as they ever were. If you have a full year and several million dollars, your inability to break through to 35% of the small caucus and primary electorates in Iowa, where only 50,000 caucus goers would be enough to win, or New Hampshire, where 100,000 primary voters would be enough to win, is not the fault of a corrupted political system. In 2004,
even Dennis Kucinich raised $13,000,000, which would be enough to spend over $85 on each of the voters needed to win both states. Don't come cryin' to mama about frontloading, a long campaign, or too much money in the process if you can't win in Iowa or New Hampshire. Quite frankly, in that circumstance, the problems with your campaign in particular, or with our democracy in general, are to be found elsewhere.
