Discriminations

I argued in my last post that “[t]he Democrats seem increasingly less like a political party and more like a precarious confederation of conflicting tribes.” Actually, I take that back. They seem more like the United Nations, the tail wagging the dog of their sovereign constituent groups.

It has often been said that a candidate’s campaigns says a lot about what kind of leader he will be if elected. That is also true of political parties, and this campaign suggests that if the Democrats win the presidency and control the Congress they will govern us in a manner that is distressingly similar to the way the United Nations attempts to govern the world.

Consider: First comes the forceful resolution, in this case laying down the law about the timing of presidential primaries. Ignoring threats, rebellious forces in the provinces (Michigan and Florida) flouted the law. In response, the Democrats did what the United Nations does when its resolutions are ignored: they imposed sanctions — delegates from the rebellious provinces would not be seated at the convention.

But now, with a close convention looming, many Democrats regard that resolution and the resultant sanctions as inconvenient. One of the two leading Democratic candidates, a hereditary member of the Democratic establishment, is loudly calling for the inconvenient (to her) rule and sanctions to be dropped.

There is nothing really new here. Sometimes rules are dropped by “liberally construing” them. “Liberals,” as I pointed out here, “are very, very good at liberally construing.” When their candidate for governor U.S. Senator of from New Jersey several years ago proved to be a dud, they dumped him in favor of a newer (actually, older), less tarnished model well after the deadline for such swaps clearly spelled out by statute.

They have “construed” the statutory authorization ... to replace a candidate’s name on a ballot “[i]n the event of a vacancy, ... which vacancy shall occur not later than the 51st day before the general election” in such a manner that the words “not later than the 51st day” don’t really mean “not later than the 51st day.”

Democratic judges on the New Jersey Supreme Court granted the wishes of their partisan colleagues in the state Democratic Party.

This New Jersey fiasco was a small potatoes replay (though with a different result) of the Democrats’ disdain, during the 2000 unpleasantness in Florida, for the inconvenient rule stated in Article Two, Section One, Clause Two of the U.S. Constitution — “[e]ach State shall appoint [electors], in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” As I discussed here, quoting Prof. Rick Hasen:

When the U.S. Supreme Court was considering the 2000 Florida controversy, supporters of Bush argued that the Florida Supreme Court, in extending the deadline for Al Gore to contest the election and later by ordering a recount, had violated Article II. The argument was that the court had usurped the legislature’s power.

And, of course, Democrats argued the opposite, that Article II’s inconvenient rule assigning the power to set election rules to state legislatures did not prevent the Florida Supreme Court from setting aside the legislature's rules and writing new ones better suited to the current needs of its co-partisans. As I argued in the post just linked,

The Florida Supreme Court “interpreted” the statutory requirement that election returns be reported within seven days to mean ... not necessarily within seven days. Ditto with the amount of time required for contesting the results, [and] several other matters.

But I digress. My point today is not that Democrats’ devotion to rules is not, well, very devout — as pragmatists, liberals have never pretended to be very fond of rules — but rather to note how easily they are willing to abandon their own rule and the sanctions applied pursuant to it as soon as the political winds shift.

Do we really want to trust a party that shreds its own sanctions and backs down when defied by Florida and Michigan to protect us from a nuclear resurgent Iran?

ADDENDUM [13 Feb.]

And let’s not forget the Superdelegates, a brief history of whom is provided here. Now making up about 20% of the Democratic delegates, these appointed, unelected party officials, office holders, etc., were a “reform” mean to undo what the pols regarded as the excessive “reforms” of 1968 and 1972. They were put in place as a “firewall,” if you will, to curb any possible future McGovernite excesses.

Now, of course, there is a demand that they simply ratify the results of the primary season. Doing what they were put in place to do, i.e., to serve as a corrective or brake on popular enthusiasms, say, for a charismatic and new but untested candidate, is widely regarded (especially by supporters of the charismatic, new, untested candidate) as heresy.