« Hillary, Democratic Nominee | north_aufzoo's Blog | In Case of Economic Depression, Break Glass (and Vote Obama) »
Caucuses = Undemocratic. Poaching Delegates = You Betcha!
Hillary's Kitchen Sink campaign should be called the logical fallacy
campaign. And it should make Democrats (and other thinking people)
cringe.
Remember when the HRC campaign was floating the possibility of Obama as VP while simultaneously declaring he was not ready to be Commander in Chief? As Obama pointed out, there was something a bit disingenuous and silly about delivering these two directly contradictory statements. Kinda makes you question the sincerity of the message. And the candidate.
Something similar is afoot this week.
On one hand, we have Hillary banging the disenfranchisement drum, saying--in what could become a self-fulfilling prophecy if she keeps up the beat--that Florida and Michigan's Democrats might not vote for the candidate that 'disenfranchised' them. And then there's Penn and Wolfson and the rest of Team Embarrassing declaring that caucuses are undemocratic and, by implication, illegitimate.
On the other hand, Hillary keeps pushing the idea that "every delegate with very few exceptions is free to make up his or her mind however they choose. We talk a lot about so-called pledged delegates, but every delegate is expected to exercise independent judgment."
OK. So.
Caucuses are undemocratic, but disregarding the results of primaries and caucuses isn't.
"Disenfranchisement" is unacceptable to the Clinton campaign when they stand to gain from a re-vote, but it's A-OK when it comes to poaching delegates won by Obama in previously-held contests.
This isn't hypocrisy. Hypocrisy, "the homage that vice pays to virtue," is an almost universal trait, and that's nowhere more true than in politics. Certainly you'll find evidence of hypocrisy within the Obama campaign. But what the HRC campaign is engaged in is different than hypocrisy and more corrosive. They are in the bullshit business. When I use the term "bullshit," I mean it in the same way that philosopher Harry Frankfurt defined it in his essay, "On Bullshit." To quote Wikipedia:
"Whereas the liar needs to know the truth the better to conceal it, the bullshitter, interested solely in advancing his own agenda, has no use for the truth. By virtue of this, Frankfurt claims, 'bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are.'"
Does anyone want to defend HRC's talk of delegate poaching--not from a strictly legalistic standpoint (we know a delegate turncoat won't be thrown in the slammer and that's really not the point here), but from an ethical one? I obviously have my own feelings on the matter, but I'd like to see a positive case made for the wooing of committed delegates. It just seems sorta... shitty.
Remember when the HRC campaign was floating the possibility of Obama as VP while simultaneously declaring he was not ready to be Commander in Chief? As Obama pointed out, there was something a bit disingenuous and silly about delivering these two directly contradictory statements. Kinda makes you question the sincerity of the message. And the candidate.
Something similar is afoot this week.
On one hand, we have Hillary banging the disenfranchisement drum, saying--in what could become a self-fulfilling prophecy if she keeps up the beat--that Florida and Michigan's Democrats might not vote for the candidate that 'disenfranchised' them. And then there's Penn and Wolfson and the rest of Team Embarrassing declaring that caucuses are undemocratic and, by implication, illegitimate.
On the other hand, Hillary keeps pushing the idea that "every delegate with very few exceptions is free to make up his or her mind however they choose. We talk a lot about so-called pledged delegates, but every delegate is expected to exercise independent judgment."
OK. So.
Caucuses are undemocratic, but disregarding the results of primaries and caucuses isn't.
"Disenfranchisement" is unacceptable to the Clinton campaign when they stand to gain from a re-vote, but it's A-OK when it comes to poaching delegates won by Obama in previously-held contests.
This isn't hypocrisy. Hypocrisy, "the homage that vice pays to virtue," is an almost universal trait, and that's nowhere more true than in politics. Certainly you'll find evidence of hypocrisy within the Obama campaign. But what the HRC campaign is engaged in is different than hypocrisy and more corrosive. They are in the bullshit business. When I use the term "bullshit," I mean it in the same way that philosopher Harry Frankfurt defined it in his essay, "On Bullshit." To quote Wikipedia:
"Whereas the liar needs to know the truth the better to conceal it, the bullshitter, interested solely in advancing his own agenda, has no use for the truth. By virtue of this, Frankfurt claims, 'bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are.'"
Does anyone want to defend HRC's talk of delegate poaching--not from a strictly legalistic standpoint (we know a delegate turncoat won't be thrown in the slammer and that's really not the point here), but from an ethical one? I obviously have my own feelings on the matter, but I'd like to see a positive case made for the wooing of committed delegates. It just seems sorta... shitty.
Advertisement
Hillary supporters are OK with the fact that she's a proven liar. It's not an issue with them.
Obama's blackness, on the other hand...
March 26, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
A question: why do you believe caucuses are Undemocratic?
March 26, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I myself don't think caucuses are particularly undemocratic. One could argue (as many Iowans do, to be sure) that the caucus system is the closest thing we have in the this country to pure participatory democracy. But the HRC campaign (and, more significantly, many of her supporters, to whom I give the benefit of the doubt and whose sincerity I do not question) believe that caucuses demand a time-commitment and level of involvement that many working people can not afford to give. It's a charge that has some merit, but I don't think the HRC campaign has the moral authority to make that sort of complaint during the heat of a (losing) campaign.
As I've written before on this site, the involved nature of caucuses has led in the past to retirees enjoying a disproportionate representation in the final tallies. This older demographic is Hillary's base. If the HRC campaign was the least bit organized in caucus states and didn't treat the nomination as something they were entitled to, they could have been more than competitive in the caucuses. And then you wouldn't have heard a peep about the supposedly undemocratic nature of the caucus system.
March 26, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Looking over my post's title, I now understand why you might have thought I personally believed caucuses were undemocratic. Should've added a question mark (caucuses = undemocratic?) to clear up any ambiguity. Whoops-- my mistake.
March 26, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for answering my question.
Texas laws state specifically employers must allow their employees may leave work to vote without recrimination. So if the laws are similar in other states Clinton's argument would be meritless.
I do not know whether the time off is deducted from their pay, nevertheless the laws protect the rights of the voters.
You may have seen my posts in favour of the caucus. They are the only path for ordinary voters to become a delegate as opposed to only party insiders. Therefore giving voice to the grassroots would not possible otherwise. That is my understanding. Feel free to correct me if Iam mistaken.
You are correct Hillary thought she would have the nomination wrapped up by Super Tuesday. It is shocking she did not even have Plan B muchless any intention of campaigning in the "red" states. The 51% strategy is not what voters want this election IMHO.
Presuming things without being prepared for change is eerily too similar to Bush&Co's MO. It reveals a lot about her foresight and judgment or rather the lack thereof.
March 26, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink