Party Politics

Debbie Wasserman Shultz.

There is lots of furor right now over the behavior of the current Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Shultz. From what I can tell it's the people who supported Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nomination that are the most offended. Bernie has been alleging unequal treatment by the committee for quite some time and it appears he was right. It comes as no surprise to me now and I found it a credible accusation then given that Clinton and Wasserman Shultz are friends. I don't know if it was direct discrimination but I'm sure there was at least a passive preference by the DNC for Hillary Clinton. The DNC is supposed to equally support all Democratic candidates without preference but there is a little more to the imbroglio than that.

Bernie is a registered Independent who caucuses with the Democrats in the Senate. Why does he do this? Why doesn't he just go it alone? The reason is that there is advantage in allies, in having numbers of people who will help you further your goals. Bernie declared as a Democrat and was allowed to campaign as a Democrat by the DNC. The DNC did not have to allow this but it did. Bernie was permitted to participate in the debates as a Democrat and to seek delegates as a Democrat. Why didn't he just do it as an Independent? Because it would have been impossible to have participated as a major candidate that way. He chose to forego that route and be governed by DNC rules which he found to be somewhat stifling.

Now, unfair though it may be, there were those in the DNC who did not see Bernie as a true Democrat. He had not placed himself on the line for Democratic causes and Democratic candidates. Most of the time he was not even a Democrat so it is easy to understand why a person charged with furthering the aims of the Democratic Party may not be so obliging. On the other hand, Hillary has a long history of supporting Democratic causes and candidates and has raised gobs of money for the party. When one looks at the issue in this light the picture becomes a bit clearer. Debbie Wasserman Shultz's aim is to put a Democrat in the White House and a Democrat that is clearly defined as a Democrat. Her assessment was that Bernie could not win and Hillary could.

So, what did the DNC do that created disadvantage for the Bernie Brigade? Things like scheduling debates, publicity and maybe even pressure to drop out. But Bernie has run a remarkable campaign that has energized young voters and new voters and has managed to raise millions of dollars from largely small contributions. It was the kind of campaign that we like to think is still possible and the Bernie Brigade feels cheated. Well, they were. Maybe not cheated out of the nomination because he was trounced in the South and lost some other very significant contests but perhaps cheated out of some deserved dignity and respect.

But the real issue here is not that Bernie was disrespected and cheated but, rather, the state of party politics in the USA these days. Political parties came about quite early in the history of the republic. John Adams was notoriously against them but Jefferson and others saw the advantage of banding together to increase power to nominate. The lust for power and the advantages of having allies led to political parties and we have had them ever since. For the most part it has been a contest between two parties whatever they may have been called unlike our cousins across the sea and to the north who use an parliamentary system in which many parties can flourish and compromises are made to bring about a majority. I don't see that as any better than ours and perhaps more disruptive. Parties have worked fairly well. Until recently the leaders of the parties were able to enforce adherence to party objectives and legislation but with the death of earmarks and the rise of instant communication the means of discipline and the surety of being discovered have had a profound influence.

Not being able to reward compliant members with earmarks has freed the legislators to seek reward in another way and that way has been by massive lobbying forces that define a legislative preference and fund it with unseen cash. Those who will not align themselves with the lobbyists suddenly find themselves the subjects of negative campaigns and a lack of money with which to mount a campaign.

It seems that the bugaboo is the money that corrupts the campaigning and legislative processes. Without those influences the legislators and campaigners would have to actually plead for the approval of the voters which, ideally, is the way it is supposed to work. The parties can be seen to facilitate legislation for without them there would be endless debate and a great din of voices. The parties allow for the movement of legislation when there may be enough support that it has a chance of succeeding. But these processes have also been corrupted by House and Senate rules of self governance which may prevent debate and amendments. The so called Hastert rule which forbids the GOP from bringing a vote on any issue without a majority of that caucus is a stumbling block that prevents non-partisan agreement. Whoever in control of the Senate controls what comes up for debate and what does not. Harry Reid was notorious for that and the GOP now won't allow debate to confirm a Supreme Court nomination. The rules must be changed.

My Take is that Debbie Wasserman Shultz is simply the face of a more divisive problem. The cancer of campaign funding and the archaic rules of the House and Senate. Change these and the problem goes away.