By Kevin D. Williamson
Sunday, November 05, 2017
Just after the 2016 election, I dared to hope “that I may
never be obliged to write the name ‘Clinton’ again.” I often mix up “lay” and
“lie,” and sometimes my English-major math shows up when I’m writing about
economic policy, but I rarely make errors related to optimism.
Oops.
So the Clintons have been involved in something dirty and
self-serving. Dog bites man. The sun also rises. A is A. Julianne Moore is
starring in a movie that nobody wants to see. Keith Olbermann said something
stupid.
Muppet News Flash.
Americans at large seemed to have lost their passion for
the Clintons in 2016, when Herself went down in ignominious defeat (to my great
surprise) in a race against a content-free game-show host with a lighthearted
attitude toward sexual battery and a cv
full of bankruptcies. But Democrats had not lost their love for Clan Clinton,
and no amount of scandal — dodgy cattle-futures trading, law-firm records that
modulate electron-like between localized and delocalized states, intern
diddling and perjury about intern-diddling and suborning perjury about
intern-diddling, Whitewater, travel-office shenanigans, Gennifer Flowers, using
state troopers as pimps, Chi-Com fundraisers, pardons for politically connected
dirt-bags, ill-gotten gains for the Clinton Foundation, Benghazi and lies about
Benghazi, email shenanigans — was ever going to change their mind.
Until it did.
(Maybe.)
Donna Brazile, a longtime Clinton henchwoman who is
crooked as a barrel of snakes, has shocked and appalled such Democrats as are
capable of being shocked and appalled (or, in the case of serial impersonator
Elizabeth Warren, capable of doing a good imitation of being shocked and
appalled — which is considerably better than her Cherokee bit) by revealing
that the Democratic National Committee in effect turned over its management to
the Clinton campaign before the primary, becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of
Clinton Inc. Politico tells the tale:
Brazile writes that the DNC signed
a joint fundraising agreement document with the Hillary Victory Fund and
Hillary for America. It had been signed in August 2015, four months after
Clinton announced her candidacy and a year before she officially secured the
nomination over Sanders.
“The agreement — signed by Amy
Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias —
specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary
would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised,”
Brazile wrote. “Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party
communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other
staff.”
Senator Warren has come around to Donald Trump’s view:
The Democratic primary was, in fact, rigged.
It is very likely that some laws were broken along the
way.
But set aside, for a moment, the chicanery: This is how
political parties should work.
The Democratic party had an excellent reason to exclude
Senator Bernie Sanders, the same reason the Republican party had to exclude
Donald Trump: He wasn’t a member of the party. Sanders is a socialist
independent who briefly joined the Democratic party for reasons of pure
political utility. Donald Trump is a . . . whatever in tarnation he is . . .
who joined the Republican party for the same reason. Trump, a sometime Democrat
and Hillary Clinton donor who had been aligned with the politically
insignificant Reform party, knew that he needed the GOP’s machinery to win the
presidency, or to even get close, and Sanders knew that his influence and power
would grow from running in the Democratic primary rather than as a U.S.
affiliate of the Monster Raving Loony party. (I miss Screaming Lord Sutch.)
Sanders is no fool: His lakeside dachas aren’t going to pay for themselves, and
there’s no money in third-party presidential campaigns — that’s just an
expensive hobby. Ask David Koch.
There is a contradiction within American progressivism,
which seeks to make the political
process more democratic while pushing the policymaking
process in a less democratic direction. For a century, progressives have
championed more open primary elections and open primaries, popular ballot
measures, referendum and recall processes, and wider voter participation. At
the same time, progressives, particularly those of a Wilsonian bent, have
sought to remove the substance of policymaking from democratically accountable
elected representatives and entrust it to unelected, unaccountable
bureaucracies in the belief that panels of experts immune from ordinary
democratic oversight could make hard decisions based on reason and evidence
rather than on short-term political necessity and popular passions. They
regarded the political parties and their infamous smoke-filled rooms as
embodiments of corruption and old-fashioned wheeler-dealer politics at odds
with the brave new centrally planned world they imagined themselves to be
building.
As it turns out, political parties are — like churches,
civic groups, unions, trade groups, lobbyists, pressure groups, and business
associations — part of the secret sauce of civil society. In much the same way
as our senators — in their original, unelected role — were expected to provide
a sober brake on the passions of the members of the more democratic House of
Representatives, political parties exercised a soft veto that helped to keep
extremism and demagoguery in check. Anybody can run for president — but not
just anybody can run as the candidate of the Republican party or the Democratic
party. Third parties face an uphill battle, but that doesn’t mean that they
cannot prevail: The Republican party was a very successful third party,
displacing the moribund Whigs.
The denuded political parties provide an important
fund-raising and administrative apparatus — along with a tribal identity that
is arguably more important — but they do not offer much more than that.
Instead, we have relatively little in the way of mediating institutions between
candidates and the public at large. If Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are your
idea of great political leaders, then you probably don’t see a problem with
that. You’re a fool, but you’re a fool who is likely to get his way in the
coming years. The difference between a republic and a democracy is that
republics put up more roadblocks between fools and their desires.
The project to make the Democratic party an instrument of
the Clinton campaign in order to prevent Bernie Sanders from making it an
instrument of his own ambitions was dishonest, corrupt, and possibly illegal.
It was also exactly what political parties are supposed
to do. A little democracy, like a little whiskey, is a good thing — too much
and you end up with Ted Kennedy.
If the Republicans had any sense, they’d be looking to
enact reforms that allow them to do legally and openly what the Democrats did
shame-facedly and left-handedly. But Donald Trump was right about one thing:
Winning is the great narcotic. Give them that, and they’ll be content. If
Herself had won in 2016, we would not be hearing a peep about any of this,
least of all from Donna Brazile, who would be enjoying some comfortable White
House sinecure instead of hawking books. Republicans won in 2016.
I wonder how it will go when they don’t.
No comments:
Post a Comment