I don't always agree with the Economist but there are some things I like about the magazine: the articles are well-written, they give thoughtful analysis of a diverse range of topics, and as this...
Exemplary
I don't always agree with the Economist but there are some things I like about the magazine: the articles are well-written, they give thoughtful analysis of a diverse range of topics, and as this article shows they don't try hard to hide what they really think. Most media organizations claim to be neutral arbiters of truth while manipulating their coverage to conform to their bias but the Economist gets right to the point after a few paragraphs: it's not really about having to listen to Williamson for a few minutes or the "chaos" of having ten people on a debate stage, it's that the voters aren't supporting the magazine's preferred "centrist" candidates and if the voters won't vote for the right person then can't we go back to the good old days where they didn't have a say?
Tellingly they refer to the end of those halcyon days as the parties being swayed by "pro-democracy arguments." They also make appeals to the rest of the world saying (through the voice of some random academic they found to echo their view) that "no other political process in the modern world" has nominations so open and they give the specific examples of the UK, Canada, Australia, France, and Mexico as countries with systems to emulate.
Well, I can't speak for most of those countries but the inclusion of Canada on that list is laughable. The last major party nomination battle was the Conservatives in 2017 and it saw 17 candidates run (with up to 14 on a debate stage at once) including, most infamously, Kevin O'Leary. Yes, that Kevin O'Leary: the reality TV multimillionaire who brands himself as a greedy amoral asshole who hates poor people as much as he loves money. Kevin O'Leary who had no political experience, barely even lived in the country anymore, and who couldn't speak French. Embarrassing the Conservative party even further it was O'Leary himself who nixed his candidacy; ostensibly because he didn't think he could get many votes in Quebec (well duh, but was that not obvious before he ran?) but likely because he just wanted the publicity from running and got spooked when it looked like he'd actually win. Is this the system the Economist speaks so highly of where party insiders vet candidates to weed out the Trumps of the world? Or, are they being a bit disingenuous in their comparisons because it helps them make their anti-democracy (to pick the obvious antonym of their characterization of the current system) point?
Personally I have mixed feelings about the American primary system (just as I do about the hodge-podge of systems we have in Canada for party leadership) but one thing I like about it is that relatively unknown candidates and their ideas can get noticed. Who knew of Bernie Sanders before 2015? Now he's a household name and his healthcare plan is one of the forefront issues of the coming election. That's not even a point the Economist is arguing against; they practically endorse a couple of unknowns in their article. Their issue with the system is that it's the wrong unknowns who rise to the top: rather than someone getting national attention because their ideas resonate with people the Economist would rather someone get national attention because they've been hand-picked by party insiders to get that attention.
All of this is rather ironic coming from the Economist. Their editorial stance is one of full-throated support for the liberal democratic order and condemnation of illiberal regimes throughout the world. They will tell you, for instance, that in their view legitimacy in the Chinese system is dependent not on the will-of-the-people but on the leaders providing stability and economic growth. And yet, that seems to be the system the Economist is arguing for here: one where leadership decisions are made before the first ballot is even cast and the only democratic "choice" is one between candidates deemed acceptable or desirable by an unelected and unaccountable cadre of power-brokers. For now, despite the lack of choice given by the two-party system, the candidates themselves at least have the legitimacy that comes with being democratically chosen for their nominations in a relatively open field. If the Economist had its way, however, that bit of democratic legitimacy on which the whole system rests would be swept aside, all in the name of what they really care about: stability and economic growth.
There are definitely good arguments there. It does seem absurd to continue to have 20 Democrats running, and to award debate time to so many. Consider the flip side, though. When the party puts...
There are definitely good arguments there. It does seem absurd to continue to have 20 Democrats running, and to award debate time to so many.
Consider the flip side, though. When the party puts its fingers on the scales as it did in 2016, you end up with other problems with electability.
Eesh. While I do think that the standards and cutoffs for the debates were too low, there are people up on that stage that really should not be there, and the clown car of candidates polling...
But if Democrats lose Mr Bullock or Michael Bennet, an impressive centrist senator from Colorado, in the next round of winnowing, they may find they lose candidates with a good chance of beating Mr Trump months before the first actual primary takes place, in February 2020.
Eesh. While I do think that the standards and cutoffs for the debates were too low, there are people up on that stage that really should not be there, and the clown car of candidates polling within the margin of error is taking valuable time away from those who actually have a shot, it seems like The Economist was just as irritated by pesky elections getting in the way of the party anointing their "electable" centrists.
what's invariably super funny is there is absolutely nothing to suggest that bullock or bennet or anybody in their ideological lane would have any better or worse of a chance of winning the...
what's invariably super funny is there is absolutely nothing to suggest that bullock or bennet or anybody in their ideological lane would have any better or worse of a chance of winning the presidency as the majority of the frontrunners, and yet so many people will have you believe that being moderate is supposed to magically win a bipartisan coalition over even as republicans will gladly call people like delaney socialists just as gladly as they'll do with sanders.
Yeah, the persistence of the myth of the moderate is baffling, considering it's worked precisely once in the past 40 years with Bill Clinton, and lead to Democrats pissing away 3 winnable...
Yeah, the persistence of the myth of the moderate is baffling, considering it's worked precisely once in the past 40 years with Bill Clinton, and lead to Democrats pissing away 3 winnable elections in the years since. It's like these people ossified in the Reagan administration, and think the Democrats' role is to be diet Republicans, put in power between the criminal administrations of real ones to give voters a brief respite, before returning the latter to office to continue the work of dismantling our society.
Rant aside, surely an electable candidate should have no problem getting themselves elected. Maybe if the electable centrist can't out debate Marianne Williamson, then they aren't the contender The Economist would have us believe.
I don't always agree with the Economist but there are some things I like about the magazine: the articles are well-written, they give thoughtful analysis of a diverse range of topics, and as this article shows they don't try hard to hide what they really think. Most media organizations claim to be neutral arbiters of truth while manipulating their coverage to conform to their bias but the Economist gets right to the point after a few paragraphs: it's not really about having to listen to Williamson for a few minutes or the "chaos" of having ten people on a debate stage, it's that the voters aren't supporting the magazine's preferred "centrist" candidates and if the voters won't vote for the right person then can't we go back to the good old days where they didn't have a say?
Tellingly they refer to the end of those halcyon days as the parties being swayed by "pro-democracy arguments." They also make appeals to the rest of the world saying (through the voice of some random academic they found to echo their view) that "no other political process in the modern world" has nominations so open and they give the specific examples of the UK, Canada, Australia, France, and Mexico as countries with systems to emulate.
Well, I can't speak for most of those countries but the inclusion of Canada on that list is laughable. The last major party nomination battle was the Conservatives in 2017 and it saw 17 candidates run (with up to 14 on a debate stage at once) including, most infamously, Kevin O'Leary. Yes, that Kevin O'Leary: the reality TV multimillionaire who brands himself as a greedy amoral asshole who hates poor people as much as he loves money. Kevin O'Leary who had no political experience, barely even lived in the country anymore, and who couldn't speak French. Embarrassing the Conservative party even further it was O'Leary himself who nixed his candidacy; ostensibly because he didn't think he could get many votes in Quebec (well duh, but was that not obvious before he ran?) but likely because he just wanted the publicity from running and got spooked when it looked like he'd actually win. Is this the system the Economist speaks so highly of where party insiders vet candidates to weed out the Trumps of the world? Or, are they being a bit disingenuous in their comparisons because it helps them make their anti-democracy (to pick the obvious antonym of their characterization of the current system) point?
Personally I have mixed feelings about the American primary system (just as I do about the hodge-podge of systems we have in Canada for party leadership) but one thing I like about it is that relatively unknown candidates and their ideas can get noticed. Who knew of Bernie Sanders before 2015? Now he's a household name and his healthcare plan is one of the forefront issues of the coming election. That's not even a point the Economist is arguing against; they practically endorse a couple of unknowns in their article. Their issue with the system is that it's the wrong unknowns who rise to the top: rather than someone getting national attention because their ideas resonate with people the Economist would rather someone get national attention because they've been hand-picked by party insiders to get that attention.
All of this is rather ironic coming from the Economist. Their editorial stance is one of full-throated support for the liberal democratic order and condemnation of illiberal regimes throughout the world. They will tell you, for instance, that in their view legitimacy in the Chinese system is dependent not on the will-of-the-people but on the leaders providing stability and economic growth. And yet, that seems to be the system the Economist is arguing for here: one where leadership decisions are made before the first ballot is even cast and the only democratic "choice" is one between candidates deemed acceptable or desirable by an unelected and unaccountable cadre of power-brokers. For now, despite the lack of choice given by the two-party system, the candidates themselves at least have the legitimacy that comes with being democratically chosen for their nominations in a relatively open field. If the Economist had its way, however, that bit of democratic legitimacy on which the whole system rests would be swept aside, all in the name of what they really care about: stability and economic growth.
There are definitely good arguments there. It does seem absurd to continue to have 20 Democrats running, and to award debate time to so many.
Consider the flip side, though. When the party puts its fingers on the scales as it did in 2016, you end up with other problems with electability.
Eesh. While I do think that the standards and cutoffs for the debates were too low, there are people up on that stage that really should not be there, and the clown car of candidates polling within the margin of error is taking valuable time away from those who actually have a shot, it seems like The Economist was just as irritated by pesky elections getting in the way of the party anointing their "electable" centrists.
what's invariably super funny is there is absolutely nothing to suggest that bullock or bennet or anybody in their ideological lane would have any better or worse of a chance of winning the presidency as the majority of the frontrunners, and yet so many people will have you believe that being moderate is supposed to magically win a bipartisan coalition over even as republicans will gladly call people like delaney socialists just as gladly as they'll do with sanders.
Yeah, the persistence of the myth of the moderate is baffling, considering it's worked precisely once in the past 40 years with Bill Clinton, and lead to Democrats pissing away 3 winnable elections in the years since. It's like these people ossified in the Reagan administration, and think the Democrats' role is to be diet Republicans, put in power between the criminal administrations of real ones to give voters a brief respite, before returning the latter to office to continue the work of dismantling our society.
Rant aside, surely an electable candidate should have no problem getting themselves elected. Maybe if the electable centrist can't out debate Marianne Williamson, then they aren't the contender The Economist would have us believe.
https://outline.com/7VhfME for those caught behind the paywall.