Primaries might not be best way to choose nominees

An article in the December issue of The Atlantic addresses an issue that has disturbed me for some time: Did we go too far in the 1970s in removing political “bosses” from the presidential nomination process?

The tumultuous party nominating conventions of the late 1960s — recall the image of Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daily cheering on police violence in the streets as Democratic Party delegates snubbed candidates not endorsed by the party establishment — and the post-Watergate campaign reforms of the 1970s fueled the shift in nomination process from collective decisions made by faithful party delegates in mammoth national conventions to a universal primary system, in which millions of individual voters make the decision once reserved for or controlled by party officials with years of experience in politics.

The “democratization” of presidential nominations seemed like a great idea at the time. The entire electorate would have a role in choosing nominees. Instead of safe, “establishment” candidates who have earned their promotion to the top job after decades of service to the public and the party, the primary system gave us unconventional candidates such as Jimmy Carter and George McGovern. Voters got to have their say, but what they often said was, “I like the cute one with a sense of humor.” Instead of a party convention, Democrats and Republicans sponsored two “beauty contests” of potential nominees.

Eventually, this led America to Donald Trump, a presidential nominee with no experience in government and no interest in learning about how the government works, even as he practices diplomacy by insult and policy making by impulsive tweets. It also led to useless enterprises such as this year’s Democratic candidate debates, featuring two dozen candidates, many of whom get few chances to speak.

The 2016 presidential campaign saw a Republican nominee who was not a Republican in the usual sense, and a Democratic candidate who did not refer to himself as a Democrat at all and had not been registered as one. This year’s candidate debates include a “spiritual adviser” with no experience in government and no clear policies.

Reforms that made presidential primary results the standard for nominating a president have not lived up to their promises. We all wanted to put an end to the “smoke-filled rooms” where presidential nominations were “really made” by cigar-chomping big-city party bosses, but we weren’t aiming for the circus we got.

We (I thought primaries would be a great way to select a presidential nominee) never thought the new process would turn into such a shipwreck. Without some “party bosses” to ride herd on candidates, we have ended up with candidates who don’t know what they’re getting into and voters who succumb to glitz, glib comments and greatly exaggerated promises.

In the Atlantic article, Jonathan Rauch and Ray La Raja suggest a new reform: allow veteran party officials (members of Congress, elected state officers, state party chairmen, etc.) to serve as appraisers of potential nominees and avoid embarrassing (and dangerous) surprises. These party regulars, with deep knowledge of governing and party principles, would serve as the “adults in the room” who can screen out the unqualified, the dangerously unhinged, the inexperienced and those untested or unsuccessful at lower levels.

Turning away from the exciting state primaries and caucuses will not be an easy sale, but a comparison of the nominees selected in traditional convention nominations and in primaries might sway opinion. Smoke-filled rooms gave America Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Woodrow Wilson, and Harry Truman. The only major mistakes in this system, arguably, were Warren Harding and Richard Nixon. That’s not a bad record.