Where Have All the Primaries Gone?
It's easy to get blasé about presidential primaries, particularly when they're obviously going to renominate an incumbent, as in 1984 or 1996. Even in contested primaries, voter turnout rarely exceeds 20 percent, and late-season primaries can devolve into academic exercises. But primaries do play a vital role in the political process, and so they should be defended against attempts by some states to cancel them for the 2004 election.
Let it be said right here that, as a non-partisan organization, the Commonweal Institute takes no position on specific races and does not support any political party. Our commitment is to the vitality of American democracy, which we feel would be undermined by the cancellation of primaries. Our analysis here is meant to throw some light on the motivations of those seeking to cancel primaries and on the consequences of doing so.
The impetus for this move comes primarily from Republican lawmakers, who make two main arguments: first, that the primaries are too expensive for states facing budget problems, and second, that President Bush will win the nomination anyway. The situation is still evolving, but Republican primaries have already been canceled in Utah, Kansas, and Colorado, and there are similar efforts afoot in South Carolina, Missouri, and Michigan. The issue is not entirely partisan, since some Democratic legislators and governors have felt compelled to support anti-primary efforts, but there is no doubt that the Right would benefit much more in 2004.
Most directly, by not having to compete in the primaries, President Bush would be able to save all his money (likely to top $200 million) for the general election campaign - and a good chunk of this money could presumably be used to support rightist candidates in state races. More broadly, the anti-primary campaign fits into a larger pattern of hard-right conservatives undercutting democratic procedures, a pattern that includes the impeachment of Bill Clinton, the shenanigans in Florida in 2000, the bought-and-paid-for California recall election, and the various state efforts at inter-census redistricting. In each case, conservatives have placed lower priority on giving full expression to the will of the people than on gaining and holding political power.
An additional reason that Republicans in particular are pushing for cancellation of primary elections is that the Democrats are expected to benefit disproportionately from the media coverage of presidential primary candidates. Democratic presidential hopefuls, now ten in number, can be expected to sound off volubly against the current occupant of the White House. State-funded primaries provide publicly-supported legitimacy for this throng of candidates, all taking aiming at the prime Republican target.
Despite the apathy with which most of the public greets primaries, they still serve important purposes. At the most basic level, they illustrate the commitment of a political party to going through the process by which the voters - not just the party operatives - choose a candidate. The alternative would render presidential elections a bit like shopping in a Soviet grocery store: you might have a couple of choices, but those choices would have been determined by faceless committees long before you walked through the door. Primaries guarantee that a leading candidate, no matter how far out in front, would have to face potential challengers and confront their arguments. Primaries make front-runners explain and defend their positions, justify their candidacies, travel to the various states, and talk to the people they hope to represent. A candidate winning a party's nomination without going through this gauntlet would be winning in the same way as Saddam Hussein carrying 99.9 percent of the Iraqi vote in 2000.
Moreover, even if the ultimate nominee seems foreordained, it's not necessarily so, and without a primary, how could we ever know if the anointed candidate would really have beaten a strong challenger? In the current instance, President Bush might be more vulnerable than many people imagine. His approval rating has fallen to just above 50 percent, and a recent poll found that more people than not would like to see a different President. If the economy doesn't significantly improve by the beginning of 2004, and if the conflict in Iraq continues to fester, those numbers could worsen and create an opening for a relatively independent Republican such as John McCain. So canceling the primaries could be premature. But the Republican Party has an interest in presenting the President Bush as the obvious choice in the 2004 general election, and setting him up as a fait accompli in the primaries - or better yet, not even having the primaries - is an important step in that direction.
Printer-friendly version