Academic

Howard Dean: Tone Deaf?

By dhutchinson

The Governors of Florida and Michigan ? a Republican and Democrat ? have issued a joint-statement urging the Democratic National Convention to seat delegates from their respective states. This would reverse a decision the DNC made last year, which penalized the states for moving their primaries ahead of the prescribed schedule. The states argued that they should have more influence in the nominating process. Holding aside the strong logic of Florida and Michigan?s assertion that they should have a stronger or equal role in selecting presidential candidates than two tiny and racially homogeneous states, Dean has responded terribly to the states? rebellious behavior.

First, stripping the states of delegates altogether was an unduly harsh and callous response; the Republicans, by contrast, only deprived the states of one half of their delegates. Second, Dean?s current stonewalling on the issue, given the tightness of this race and the importance of those states in the national election, shows that he is tone-deaf to the potential embarrassment and division that this ongoing fight portends. Dean issued a very terse response to the Governors, which mentions the DNC?s scheduling “rules” five separate times. The sterile formalism in Dean?s statement does not benefit the party, and it bears a striking resemblance to Katherine Harris? callous disregard of voters? rights during the Bush and Gore standoff in 2000. While Dean remains open to the states submitting a “new plan” to select delegates, he says that the only alternative remedy involves an appeal the DNC Credentials Committee in August. An appeal at that late date would present tremendous difficulties for the party. It would not give the two leading candidates or the voters (particularly those from Florida and Michigan), the finality and voice in the process they deserve. The DNC should allow for an accelerated appeals process so that the party can expeditiously resolve this contentious issue.

Dragging a Florida and Michigan delegate battle into August could bring tremendous turmoil to the Democratic party, particularly if the party were then still bickering over the function of Super Delegates. One should never underestimate Florida?s willingness to occupy the national spotlight, negatively or positively. A summer slugfest over its delegates could have echoes of Elian Gonzales, Bush v. Gore, Terry Schiavo, and other contemporary Florida Moments. That two Florida legislators have recently proposed legislation that would bar the name of the eventual Democratic nominee from appearing on the November ballot if the DNC does not seat the state?s delegates, demonstrates that people in the state will increasingly politicize the matter if it remains unresolved. Alienating voters in such an important Democratic state could have terrible consequences in November.

Although Dean has mishandled the situation, no easy solutions exist. Holding new elections would cost millions of dollars, but allocating delegates based on the original contests seems patently unfair, given the lack of campaigning in the states and the omission of Barack Obama?s name from the Michigan ballots. Furthermore, the candidates agreed to the DNC penalty prior to the nominations process, so holding them to their promises seems equitable. But election and voting laws protect the candidates and voters, and the Democratic Party views itself as the party of justice and equality. The DNC has described this election cycle as “historic,” given the race and gender of the two leading candidates. A failure to respect voters? interests undermines the progressive symbolism of this election. As we saw in 2000 and 2004, inflexible and callous application of “rules” can harm voters. It elevates form over substance. The DNC should not legitimize heavy-handed tactics that have historically disenfranchised voters. Individuals within the party who care about civil rights should not accept this potentially harmful precedent. Due to the inherent unfairness of allocating delegates based on the original votes in these states, strict enforcement of the rules might prevail. But if this is the ultimate outcome, remedying voter disenfranchisement should begin now, rather than later.

 [Note: After I wrote this essay, internet rumors have stated that Michigan will hold caucuses.]

ShareThis

Full post as published by BlackProf on March 07, 2008 (boomark / email).