Our political parties are failing us, and their failures are becoming much harder to ignore. Paralysis in Congress, dementia in the states and a student council campaign for the White House have Americans of all stripes wondering where it all went wrong.
Presidential campaigns can be irritatingly insistent reminders of our national shortcomings, and this year’s Obama hunt has already given us plenty of reasons to feel embarrassed.
In particularly sad election cycles — meaning almost all of them — certain pieces of our system are always getting dragged out and castigated. The Electoral College, the two-party system, women’s suffrage — surely something must explain how this keeps happening.
The big scapegoat of the season, at least this week: the closed primary. Writing for CNN, former Giuliani speechwriter John Avlon railed against the evils of closed primaries, blaming them for radical candidates like Christine O’Donnell.
All of Delaware lost, he argued, when hard-right Republican primary voters dropped a viable candidate in former Rep. Mike Castle for a virtually unelectable O’Donnell.
But closed primaries in Delaware, as elsewhere, are hardly the real problem.
If Delaware Republicans feel the way Avlon assumes, meaning they generally line up center-right and love Castle, closed primaries should’ve been a non-issue.
But only 32 percent of Republicans voted in Delaware’s primary. So the problem wasn’t a lack of Democrats and Independents; the problem was a lack of Republicans.
In a perfect world, party-based elections give us twice the vote: one in a primary, and another in the general election. They are inherently more participatory, and when they work right, most people have a better chance at an acceptable general election candidate.
But a two party system only works with two healthy, working parties. If the bulk of one party checks out, ceding power to its rabid minority, general elections become meaningless. Republicans nominate an idiot, so Democrats just need a lesser evil.
This problem wouldn’t be too hard to fix, if reasonable people would just check back into politics. But given the state of the parties, that’s a tough sell.
Political parties are not for governing. They are, or are supposed to be, servants and facilitators. They allocate money and influence to support credible candidacies, meaning ones that represent the party membership. A well-functioning party should weed out hilarious sideshows, and help distinguish rising leaders.
They do these things in service of their members, who should always feel some sense of ownership. But for most Americans, that sense has been gone for some time now.
Instead, our parties have become exclusive clubs for true believers only. RINOs and DINOs need not apply, regardless of how popular they are with voters.
The solution to this problem isn’t open primaries; the solution is better parties.
Americans deserve parties that represent them. Parties that tailor themselves to the views of their members, instead of forcing canned platforms down their throats.
It’s not something that’s just going to happen — somehow, we’ve got to first shake off years of apathy.
Voters have to ask themselves, what can this party do for me? And then demand it.
Reach the columnist at john.a.gaylord@asu.edu
Click here to subscribe to the daily State Press newsletter.
