The "superdelegates" of the Democratic Party are a study in contradictions. While the very name of the Democratic Party carries the implication of keen interest in the average voter, the function of superdelegates reveals the elitist bent of the Democratic Party.
I was planning on writing a piece about superdelegates, but I came across "(Not So) Superdelegates" written by Ted R. Bromund at Commentary Magazine that says it so well.
...the fact that the Democratic Party does not trust Democratic voters to pick the right candidate could easily lead voters of all stripes to decide that they, in turn, should not trust it.
Bromund's piece examines the history of how superdelegates came to be, and if you believe not only in a republican (small "r") form of government, but greatly in the "power of the people," then perhaps the Democrat Party isn't the place for you.
According to Bromund, the Democrats had tried to "democratize" their selection process as a result of the 1968 election. That led to the disastrous selection of ultra-liberal George McGovern and his humiliating 1972 defeat, and Jimmy Carter, who made great headway in making the United States look like a Third World country with our runaway inflation, unemployment, interest rates, and military impotence.
Thus, Democrats came up with the superdelegate system to insulate the party from its own voters. No more could "the people" be trusted with candidate selection.
South Dakota's own superdelegates include none other than former Senator Tom Daschle, Senator Tim Johnson, and Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin.
Bromund also points out that while superdelegates can normally be counted on to ensure victory for the establishment candidate, the politics of victimhood which has characterized the Democrat Party for years (it could be said that the party is made up of victims of some type or another, and those who specialize in pandering to those victim groups) is lending to some superdelegate uncertainty this election.
There is the victim-group of feminist women, and the victim-group of liberal blacks. But then there is also the establishment-favorite in Hillary Clinton, even as she represents the female victim-group. Such tough decisions!
Still, I find it ironic that a party which ostensibly prides itself on "reaching down to the common man," believing in democracy, and "power to the people" is in practice a party led by elitists.
This superdelegate mechanism actually goes hand-in-hand with the liberal belief that average people are too stupid to run their own lives, that everyday people are incompetent, that average people need government to make the important decisions for them and to do everything for them.
So I suppose it fits with the Democrat Party, after all.
2 comments:
Thanks for informing us about superdelegates. I didn't understand this system until now.
"This superdelegate mechanism actually goes hand-in-hand with the liberal belief that average people are too stupid to run their own lives..."
Indeed. Isn't that the sum of what the liberal Democrat Party is about? Only the anointed, e.g., Hillary, Daschle, Durbin, Schumer,Jackson et al. are capable of knowing what is best for you and I and we should be thankful that we have been so blessed. No, not thankful to God! Thankful to them!
I didn't know a whole lot before I found the piece at Commentary Magazine; mainly that it was an elitist tool the Democrat Party came up with to keep their constituency restrained. I learned a lot about the history of the process from the article myself.
Post a Comment