Question for Our National Parties: WTF?

Question for Our National Parties: WTF?  This piece is not intended to be an obituary for the Trump presidential campaign.  As I have written before, I consider this race to be absolutely wide open and subject to any number of events that could ultimately decide its winner.  But what has led to a significant number of Republicans refusing to support Trump as their party’s nominee; many of them actually and openly supporting Clinton?   What has led to the Republican Party nominating an idiot for President in 2016?    Why have the Democrats nominated a person who is undisputedly viewed as dishonest and untrustworthy by a majority of Americans?

Even though it is all conjecture (what else is blogging good for?), a strong argument could be made that had the Republicans nominated any one of three or four other candidates for President, that person would now be enjoying a significant polling advantage over Hillary Clinton.  She is, without a doubt, the weakest Democratic candidate for President selected in my lifetime.  Now I don’t blame the Republican Party leadership for nominating Trump; Trump actually won that nomination in spite of the Republican Party leadership.  It was the Republican Primary voters who nominated Trump and I will address that later on.  I will blame the Republican Party leadership for their weasel behavior in failing to support their nominee and, in many instances, openly betraying their Party membership and actively supporting Hillary Clinton.   It remains a mystery to me how any rational person can use the fitness standard to eliminate Trump for President while giving Clinton a pass on the same standard.  If Trump can manage to keep his mouth under control, institute some modicum of discipline in his campaign, and manage to create some positive momentum that will close this race or even push him ahead in the polls, it will be interesting indeed to see how many of these Republican leaders who deemed Trump unfit when he was losing reevaluate his fitness for President when his prospects look a bit brighter.  Having said all of that, there are a couple of issues that have surfaced in this primary season that should be addressed and might lead to a better selection process in future years; both in method and in the quality of the nominee.  These issues apply equally to both parties, but they seem more apparent in the Republican Party.  Flawed as she is and as difficult to understand why no Democrat could muster any meaningful opposition to Clinton, one can see how a politician with her resume, organization, and history could acquire her party’s nomination.  It is a far greater mystery how a political non-entity (perhaps even a closet Democrat?) like Trump could ride in out of left field and seize the Republican nomination.  When a Presidential Election is widely acclaimed to be the choice between the lesser two evils, it is clearly time that the Republicans and the Democrats reexamine their methods and processes for selecting their presidential nominees.  Here are two places to start.

As I have written before, it is insane for members of an opposing party to participate in the selection of another party’s nominee.  There are open primaries, where everyone can vote in any primary they choose.  There are semi-closed primaries, where only party members and non-affiliated persons can vote in the selection of their party’s nominee.  And then there are closed primaries, where only party members may participate in the selection of their party’s nominee.  These rules vary from state to state and sometimes the line is actually blurred between these three categories.  Perhaps a good example of the inordinate influence this system can affect is this year’s New Hampshire primary.  That primary result, along with his poor debate performance, created a hole for Marco Rubio from which he could never escape.  One could make a pretty decent argument that absent the New Hampshire Primary, Marco Rubio might very well be the Republican nominee for President.  Democrat Party members should select the Democratic nominee for President.  Republican Party members should select the Republican nominee for President.  If you want to vote in either one of these primaries, join that party.  This is not an affront to democracy.  If you want to run for President, you need not run as a Democrat or a Republican.  Democrat and Republican primaries, nationwide, should be closed affairs.  The addition of non-party participants in these events distorts and devalues their results and leaves them open to various types of manipulation.  ‘Nuff said.

The primary season for both parties is a bizarre and byzantine process of various rules and methods that requires a huge amount of cash and a sizable organization to gain any prospect of success.  There is nothing illegitimate about each Party making their own rules and creating special categories for their delegates.  As long as the party leadership reflects the party membership and the rules are understood by all contestants up front, then let the games begin.  The status of the Democrat super delegates and their apparent allegiance to Clinton was unsavory.  The constant drum beat of various Republican Party leaders to change the rules after it became obvious that Trump was going to win the nomination was detestable.  But the facts are that the Democrat super delegate rules were in place prior to the primary season and the Republican delegate rules were not changed to wrest the nomination from Trump.  My point is this: Even though each Party has the right to establish their own rules, both systems are terribly flawed and they result in less than desirable results.  Delegate rules need to faithfully reflect the results of the actual state votes in each primary; that is a principle that is clear and should be easy to understand.  Additionally, both parties need to come up with a system that while not excluding legitimate candidates from the competition, will limit the number of candidates to a reasonable number (4, 5,6??) prior to the process becoming fully engaged and meaningful (the time of the Party debates).  Now I can appreciate that this might be a “chicken or the egg” conundrum, but once again…the parties make the rules and this could be worked out in a fair and reasonable fashion.  Once the candidates are defined, there should be a series of regional primary contests (i.e. Southeast, Midwest, Northeast, etc.) that are held over a period of time that will permit each candidate to consolidate and better utilize their campaign resources in order to target a manageable number of states and media markets.  Each state in the region can independently conduct their primary on a common date and the collective results will then impact the race accordingly.  Although available cash will always have an inordinate influence on primary outcomes, this method should make it easier for a lesser-funded candidate to be competitive.  The goal should be for all candidates that begin the primary season to finish the primary season.  The game should not end at half-time or the end of the third quarter because of a sound bite or a single dramatic debate performance or an unexpected state primary result.  It should be a testing ground that reveals the best candidate for the party and encompasses the entire nation; giving voters an adequate opportunity to evaluate each and every candidate.  And while providing a reasonable amount of time for exposure, consideration, and travel; it should also be completed over an efficient stretch of time and leave ample opportunity for the ultimate winner to define their message to the voters in anticipation of the Presidential election in November.

No system will ever be bullet-proof and there will always be instances where the process can be gamed.  But the fact that the American public is now faced with a choice of selecting either an Idiot or a Crook as our next President is just wrong.  If our national parties have any integrity at all, they are presently working on revisions such as these to their primary process so that the caliber of our presidential candidates will more closely resemble one that selects the best among us for leadership, as opposed to giving the rich and corrupt the chance to further their own egos and self interests.