The candidate selection process that the Democrats are now stuck with is a direct result of all their pathetic attempts at egalitarianism and "fairness" to all the activists and identity groups that make up the Democratic Party. What they ended up with is something that looks like the Italian parliament.
This ever-proliferating, ever-changing, "reform" process makes the old smoke-filled room seem like the height of sanity and good governance. The closest things left to the old ways are the "super-delegates" that were intended to act as the (anti-democratic) safety checks to save the party from its excesses (read McGovern in 1972 and Carter in 1976). Now, of course, when they are really needed, the cry is that they must act in the "democratic" way and go with the candidate who has a plurality but not the required majority and push him or her over the top, no matter whether he/she is injurious to the party's interests or not. If that is the only purpose they now serve (instead of as a sanity check to ensure the nomination of an "electable" candidate), then why bother to have them at all?
No matter how much the Democrats tinker and fiddle to let everyone be heard and be represented, someone will always have the advantage or the knowledge to be able to "game" the system. Human nature and ingenuity will always win out. And no matter how much "tolerance", "inclusiveness" or "diversity" (or whatever the latest fashionable operative word is) the Democrats strive for, some group is bound to feel "excluded" and resentful. May it ever be so for the Liberals and their “mosaic” - at least for as long as they continue to be obsessed with identity over competence.
No comments:
Post a Comment