There is an alternative solution which could be applied immediately by a DNC rule change. This proposed change proceeds from an observation about the logic of holding extremely expensive conventions attended by voting delegates from all over the country to determine a nominee, rather than just performing an audit of primary results and tallying them up to determine the nominee. Behind this delegate convention practice is the notion that the delegates are supposed to exercise some form of judgment in selecting a nominee superior to that of the voters who sent them. This is comparable to elected officials when performing their delegated duties. Absent the concept that representative democracy can sometimes, "in all good conscience," Rule 12 (J), improve upon lesser-informed judgments rendered by direct democracy, the PR Convention extravaganza could be held on its own, without the pretense of a deliberative nomination taking place just for purposes of doing the math.
A way for the delegates to exercise their judgment so as to add value to the underlying math of the democratic process, and contribute to making the process more than the sum of its mathematical parts, would be to expose the delegates to objective relevant reality as a prerequisite to their exercising their discretion on who to nominate. A rule change could introduce a citizens jury process for the national conventions. This is a known technique to overcome the impact of propaganda on public discussion, in the same way that trial jurors make decisions based on an evidentiary process designed to uncover truth, rather than merely implement the jurors' preconceived biases.
By overcoming the effect of propaganda disclosed by the WaPo poll, exposure to some objective facts about the candidates could only improve the nomination process at best, and be harmless re-education at worst.
This is an innovative idea, of course. But is there a better way to counteract propaganda, other than banning it, which is unlikely in any near future in which plutocrats hide their influence behind bizarre judicial interpretations of the First Amendment? Before the delegates go ahead and commit party-suicide by nominating Hillary Clinton, should they not at least be exposed to a presentation by a neutral pollster on the consistent findings that Sanders is more likely to win in November as well as an honest neutral statement of the two candidates' thoroughly vetted resumes detailing their actual experience and successes? No moderate sized company would hire a CEO without such due diligence. Is it too much to expect some slight gesture toward such diligence from the doorkeepers to the most powerful executive office in the world?
A formal vetting by professionals of a candidate's resume for claimed experience could be subject to objective standards equally applicable to both candidates. Reporting on polling results can be objectively critiqued. The other two criteria, "Cares about people like me" or is "Honest and trustworthy" are not much susceptible to objective inquiry, barring a John Oliver-style body-slam (ironically recycled by Mitt Romney) for extreme cases.
4.
Conflicted Superdelegates and RBC Members
The
final problem requires application a simple traditional rule to guard
against straightforward conflict of interest corruption in the
nomination process. To use Minnesota as an example again, its
congressional delegation Superdelegates all support Clinton except
for Keith Ellison who has endorsed Sanders. Yet these politicians'
constituents overwhelmingly support Sanders. There is something
wrong here. In 2008 Obama bought
Superdelegates, and no doubt the same has occurred in 2016.
One solution for such blatant legalized corruption is a rule binding all super delegates to vote the way their constituents have indicated. This, in effect, would get rid of the Superdelegate remnant of the old party-boss system that the Democratic Party used to select its presidential candidates until it selected Hubert Humphrey in 1968 notwithstanding the fact he had not won a single primary. The Party went into a tailspin from which it never really recovered, due in part to the long term corrupting influence of Nixon's four Supreme Court appointments which put the plutocratic party leadership at odds with its traditional Democratic constituency.
Short of scrapping the Superdelegate practice, those Superdelegates who have a conflict of interest as a result of receiving money or other substantial benefit from a candidate should at least be subject to robust enforcement of recusal rules, both in the Convention and on the important Rules and By-Laws Committee (RBC).
It is the RBC which would decide upon the four rules suggested here. If the RBC were motivated to facilitate a democratically determined nomination that would win in November, rather than one distorted by conflicts of interest to support the worst candidate, they would adopt these rules. Therefore application of robust conflict of interest recusal must begin with the RBC itself.
Just one example of a clearly conflicted member of the RBC is Harold M. Ickes, a long-time Clinton advisor and a senior advisor to the independent "Ready for Hillary" super PAC. Ickes' involvement as a voting member of any rules committee proceedings that would affect the Clintons is a clear conflict of interest. Ickes was known as Bill Clinton's "garbage man" for running interference on Clintonian corruption. Yet there he now sits on the RBC, prepared for further duty. When Ickes rejoined the Rules and Bylaws Committee, at least one longtime Democratic strategist raised her eyebrow. Said Donna Brazile, a fellow member of the rules committee: "He predated the Clinton era, but when I saw Harold reappointed to the D.N.C., he surely, in my judgment, symbolizes the return of the Clintons." Should the Clintons, in effect, be sitting on the committee that will be making rules that could determine whether Hillary Clinton gets the nomination as a result of trickery tolerated by and embedded in those rules?
This is the kind of corrupt conflict of interest currently allowed to contaminate a committee that is supposed to make rules designed to fairly yield the best, most democratic and potentially successful choice, not the choice dictated by those obviously conflicted interests and their hopes of sharing in further spoils. A federal law could prohibit these corrupting factors. Until then it is necesary to correct them by party rules.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
1
1
