|
This is a proposal I've been considering -- I've never heard it proposed anywhere else before, so it's entirely original and therefore completely open to debate. It has plenty of kinks, but I want to know what others' views on this is.
One of the chief problems in American Democracy is the lack of a coherent and vocal opposition -- unfortunately that strikes Democrats harder than Republicans b/c we're a far more diverse, big-tent party than the more ideologically united... opponents (for lack of a better euphemism).
Parliamentary systems are notable for how stringent their opposition blocs or parties are. This is due to many factors, including parliamentary procedure like Question Time, and the fact that the executive and the legislature are rolled into one.
(As a side note, it's ironic that we never got a parliamentary system -- the framers were worried that uniting the exectuive and the legislature would allow for abuse of power. Historical hindsight has proven parliamentary govts. to be more effective at passing legislation, and also far less susceptible to subversion and autocracy.)
What I propose isn't a parliamentary system, but rather, electing party chairmans (our presumptive nominee) right after a general election if our candidate fails to win election. One of the features that makes parliamentary opposition groups so strong is that the parties unite behind a leader at every stage, and assemble a "shadow government" that opposes the govt. and offers an alternative platform at every turn.
As it is in the U.S., a losing party suffers (like we have for the past 4 years) b/c there is no single party figure to lead the party and offer an alternative. Instead, we have competing heads, such as the minority leader, the leader of the senate, the former political figures, establishment heads like Terry McAuliffe and many in the DLC.
If we were to have picked a candidate in, say, the spring of 2001, then offered an alternative to Bush all across, many of the problems we have today would not have occurred. I doubt the Democrats would've supported war in Iraq, for instance.
In addition, it would train a potential president in controlling and managing a large political party, honing skills and allowing them an easier time should they reach the WH. To make sure that the position remained accountable, a mechanism could be created so that if the party's rank-and-file or grassroots were disappointed in the leadership, they could call for a new leadership race -- so we could still be having a presidential primary race right now if our leader selected in 2001 had proven ineffective.
There are obvious downsides. It's possible that the new leadership wouldn't be effective -- we could've wound up with Lieberman, or Daschle, or Gephardt after 2000, for instance.(I have respect for all, but they're ineffective opposition leaders.) But I think it's more likely we would've wound up with someone stronger -- actually, Kerry would've been a good prospect (and remember, though he voted for the war, it's forgetten that before, he was one of the most strident critics of the admin.). Gore would probably have been offered it, but he probably would've turned it down. There are others. One downside is it could've over-emphasized insiders, though my argument is that if the insiders proved ineffective, they could be ousted in favor of someone more maverick like Dean.
The other big problem is logistical. How do you select nominees? Only caucuses really offer a realistic opportunity, b/c primaries are too expensive to be done on a whim -- perhaps larger, better-funded, open caucuses that could be like "party primaries" would be one option. In addition, the option of terminating the leadership is open to question -- how would it be done? Would it just be the DNC? Petitions? Perhaps, looking to the future, online networks? Or, even the party insiders?
I hope this post does not die quickly, I want to know what others think.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
