What an election!
Donald Trump has stormed onto the political scene, with droves of passionate supporters. Yet many Americans of all political stripes are very uneasy about the prospect of a Trump presidency, viewing him as too confrontational and impulsive, and fearing that his temperament is unsuited for high office.
How did the Republican Party select Mr. Trump as its candidate if he is unpopular with so many of its party members? Mr. Trump’s nomination as GOP candidate seems perplexing, but there’s a way to understand it better.
What unsettles many people is the idea that the Republican state delegates may choose to vote differently than the primary election outcome in their state, which appears to violate the principle of democracy. Party conventions have become largely scripted and no more than show business, with virtually no examples of brokered or event contested conventions in our lifetimes.
Might the GOP delegates actually try to throw Trump under the bus in Cleveland? Insert a “conscience clause” in convention rules, freeing up delegates to select someone other than Trump?? How legitimate would that be? Trump’s supporters went into the primaries believing that their votes–and victories–over rivals mattered. They threaten convention disruption if any attempt is made by GOP “insiders and career politicians” to deny them. With Ohio as an open carry gun state, and with America’s national agony over gun shootings, there is more than enough potential in Cleveland for trouble.
In a time of near political chaos, where the modern Republican Party appears to be unraveling, I’d like to offer an analogy that may help.
How are decisions made in baseball?
I like baseball analogies. In many ways baseball, that quintessentially American game, can open a window of understanding into other areas.
Think of the All-Star game in Major League baseball. Who picks the all-star team? How does a player become an All Star?
As in politics, there are two potential decision systems.
Fans choose through a direct popular vote
After all, it’s the fans’ game. They pay for the tickets and the support the teams. Without those fans there would be no sport. So one way to look at it is: The All-Star team belongs to the fans; it’s their sport and they should get to pick the team. Maybe you have seen an all-star ballot at the sporting goods store. You were excited to vote for your favorite players, and then mail the ballot in, so see the final tally and starting line-up. This is called populism. Let them vote in their favorite players.
Or. . .
League managers use their insider knowledge to select All-Stars
In this line of thinking, the 30 league managers–the experts–the professional strategists of the sport are best qualified. They know the best players, far more so than enthusiastic and fickle fans whose choices are more emotional. The managers know which players are most effective in each aspect of the game; they know the clutch hitters and go-to pitchers. They have the most experience and best understand the strategy of the game. The 30 managers should meet in a room to name the All-Star Team This decision system is called elitism.
So which system do you think will create the best and most effective All-Star team? Is popular democracy the primary goal, despite the possibility of an ill-informed choice, or should the decision be made by qualified experts?
Each system has its pros and cons
The word “elites” has taken on a negative connotation in our politics, yet that argument makes sense to many. The experts have much more knowledge of the players and of the game itself. Should the fans make the final decision or should the team managers even if that means going against the will of the people, a distasteful prospect? Imagine the fans picking a colorful players with a lot of entertainment schtick, but whose overall performance is erratic and would be passed over by the managers.
That’s essentially the question the Republican Party faces. Trump has won the direct primaries decisively, riding a wave of popular voting support. On the other hand, the elites of the party, such as big donors and previous nominees such as Mitt Romney and the Bushes, view Trump as a disaster for the party and may try to overturn his nomination at the convention. It’s the same thing as naming the All-Star team in baseball.
The core issue of how much direct democracy we want actually goes back to the Founding Fathers.
Thomas Jefferson was a “man of the people.” He thought the common people should have the most decision-making power. Alexander Hamilton was an elitist who believed the masses too emotional, poorly informed and turbulent to be reliable; he wanted law-making powers in the hands of a class of seasoned professionals.
Congress, where voters choose the experts but then those experts hold the vote, was the compromise between the two views, at least in theory! Congress lately is more unpopular than cockroaches and colonoscopies.
Who chooses the party’s nominee?
Consider the question of the Donald. Do you see him as the rightful nominee because he won the popular vote, or do you think GOP leaders should be able to select a different nominee who they think will be in the best interests of the party, namely a Republican victory? The fans or the managers? How should it be decided?
Your answer is hugely important for our society and says a great deal about your view of our society and the nature of government.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider sharing it.