Brokered Democracy

I am reliably informed that Deliberately Considered is not the first website that Republican operatives turn to, and I have little interest in stalking these worthies, at least without a Newt Gingrich-level consulting contract. However, I do follow the Republican nomination demolition derby with skeptical amusement, awaiting the Santorum boomlet and wondering if, by some Mormon miracle, Jon Huntsman might be the last man standing. More likely is that Republicans will find themselves with a set of fatally-damaged goods.

What has been most notable about the current Republican contenders is who has chosen not to run. These are politicians who have avoided the injurious process that constitutes what we term the American democratic process. Significant figures such as Mike Huckabee, Haley Barbour, Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan, John Thune, Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie, Jim DeMint, Marco Rubio, and Jeb Bush (!) – and, for comic relief, Sarah and The Donald – have all determined that they should watch this unreality show from afar. While one – even a Republican one – might not embrace all of these possibilities, several compare favorably to the current field.

Some commentators, such as Howard Megdal of Salon.com, speculate that Republicans can save themselves from themselves if none of the announced candidate were to win, and for Republicans to retreat to the once common outcome of a brokered convention in which through negotiation wise men anointed a candidate. Will we see a convention of the sort that through a night of cigar smoke gave birth to Warren Gamaliel Harding on the tenth ballot? Or the one that selected Woodrow Wilson on the 46^th ballot? With the Republican commitment to proportional awarding of delegates, if the current candidates remain in the race, it is likely that no candidate will gain a majority of delegates, and the decision will be made at their late August convention in Tampa, Florida with delegates eventually released from their commitments. The gift that Republicans can hope for late summer is a collection of losers.

The question is not who would have the greatest chance to triumph over the bruised and battered incumbent, but rather whether the idea of a brokered convention – three ballots or 103 – will benefit democracy. I speak for the affirmative. American democracy – in both parties – is now turned on its head by a promiscuous effusion of popular involvement. The voters have their say – and should properly have their say – in the general election, but the voters are not the party. Or they shouldn’t be. Democracy should depend upon several levels of expertise. Political choices need not always be made by a jangly and discordant vox populi. It was not so very long ago – a half century – in which primary elections were symbolic and rare, and democratic theorists saw this as right and proper. The primaries in 1960, notably the West Virginia primary between Kennedy and Humphrey, mattered so much because they sent a signal to elites in the Democratic Party about Kennedy’s appeal to Protestant Middle America. We sometimes mistake the demands of democracy as requiring that “the people” participate at all moments of the democratic process. But why should this be? The public is very proficient at choosing among candidates who have been vetted, but they are less knowledgeable about the trustworthiness and competence of candidates as judged by colleagues. Voters are easily swayed by advertising or journalistic accounts without awareness of background information to which insiders have access.

While I prefer strong parties that select their candidates through the wisdom of local knowledge, this is not possible as nomination contests have been organized. During most elections the public winnows the candidates so that by spring only one remains. The convention has become a ritual afterthought, a glorious coronation filled with balloons and bombast.

But this need not be so, and perhaps it will not be the case in 2012. Consider a scenario in which Newt and Mitt split 50% of the delegates, Ron Paul gathers 15%, Michele Bachmann gains 10%, Rick Perry nabs the same, and Rick Santorum and Jon Huntsman, bless his rock’n’roll heart, split 5%. Another ten percent are uncommitted elected officials. What might happen under these circumstances?

Perhaps the outcome – fifty ballots – might be highly entertaining for political junkies, but the results might also be instructive and bracing, as candidates – those who have run and those who have not – are deliberately considered by leaders with influence and stature. Perhaps the GOP will select a candidate that a large swath of the Republican electorate can support, a candidate that hasn’t had to eat rubber chicken and sleep in fading motels. Perhaps we will discover that experts can make serious choices. Just maybe, should that happen, Barack Obama will confront more sleepless nights than if he were to face a possible President Paul or, gulp, Candidate Gingrich. But the rest of us might sleep easier.