Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> Balkinization

Legal Commentary

: Balkinization

Democracy and the Democratic primary process

By Jack M. Balkin

If there is one thing that is clear about contemporary America, it is that "democracy" scarcely describes our approach to politics. No, I'm not going to do another attack on our Constitution. Instead, I continue to be interested in the widespread belief that the Democratic primary has gone on "too long" and that something needs to be done to wrap it all up (and, in fact, that it should have been wrapped up weeks ago). As a committed Obamaite, I've not been above such thoughts, but as a slightly more detached analyst, I wonder what exactly is wrong about the current imbroglio, at least if one believes in democracy.

Consider the following: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama actually have had to visit states like Texas, Wyoming, and Mississippi, which they will certainly not do for the general election. They will also find themselves in North Carolina and South Dakota before too very long. This means, among other things, that they are actually forced to become familiar with issues that might matter to people in those states and address them as, gasp, the equal of Democrats in safe states or the fabled swing voters in the few "battleground states." I'm opposed, of course,

to the over-representation of South Dakota or Wyoming in the U.S. Senate. And perhaps something needs to be done, as suggested in earlier comments to one of my postings, about the undue influence that Iowa and New Hampshire have over the process, but the answer is surely not to deprive small states--or "safe Republican states" like Texas--of a role in selecting the nominees of their parties. The answer to over-representation in the Senate surely can't be no genuine representation in the presidential nomination process.

And it's not only the "post-Super-Tuesday" states who are benefitting. Columbia law professor Christina Burnett has noted in a piece for the Wall Street Journal that Puerto Rico's delegates are suddenly precious commodities, so that Obama and Clinton will have to pay attention to what is, at present, the largest remaining colony in the world. I am defining "colony" here is defied as territory "owned" by a country that refuses to give it (i.e., the territory) representation in the national institutions of governance. French colonies have representation in the French legislature, and Tibet, perhaps regrettably, is viewed as part of the Peoples Republic of China. Puerto Rico, of course, became part of the American empire because of an ealier "splendid little war" in 1898, but the island continues to occupy a limbo-like status. I, for one, will be extremely interested to hear what the candidates have to say about the future of Puerto Rico, as I assume is the case with Puerto Ricans themselves. Obama has supported "self-determination." Is he prepared to fight for statehood if that should be the majority's desire, including the retention of Spanish as the island/state's primary language? Ditto Hillary. Would either accept an unlikely vote in favor of independence? I am absolutely confident that neither would feel the slightest need to learn anything about Puerto Rico in the absence of the need actually to campaign for votes there. (I understand that Puerto Rico is a beautiful place to visit sometime after the Pennsylvania primary!) If John McCain has well-thought-out views about Puerto Rico, I haven't heard them expressed. And I'm sure we're not likely to hear anything from McCain before the election (unless, of course, he believes that Obama or Clinton makes a mistake regarding Puerto Rico that can serve as a useful foil for his own campaign).

Finally, there is also the obvious fact that the repeated debates between the two candidates, for all of their flaws, actually help to give us relevant information about whom we want to serve as president (including answering the phone at 3AM). One might think that is important in a country that professes to take democracy seriously. As the United States professes, often incoherently, to favor the spread of "democracy" across the world, ask yourself which of the nominating processes of the two American parties offers a more attractive example of choice "by the people." Shouldn't those of us who are Democrats (as well as democrats) take some pride in that? Do we really envy the 60% of the Republicans who voted against John McCain and are trying desperately to summon up enthusiasm for his candidacy?

Full post as published by Balkinization on March 16, 2008 (boomark / email).