Unintended Consequences, Democratic Style

February 18, 2008

We now know all about “Super Delegates”. They represent about 20% of the overall delegates in the Democratic Party. They also represent the inherent power structure within the party. Personally, I had no idea they even existed two months ago. Nevertheless, looking at the big picture of this political construct seems to be reflective, as it should be, of the philosophical approach of the party and the inherent potential for unintended consequences. 

Were one to be a tad cynical one might make the following observations:

It’s the nanny state in microcosm. In a close race, “we, the Super Delegates, are positioned to make the “appropriate” decision.” Minority rule? It is reflective of the idea that we’ve seen repeatedly, if Congress and The President cannot get it right, the courts will do it for us.

It’s a reflection of the idea that a small body of elites know better and that they just don’t trust us to make appropriate personal choices, unless, of course, we agree with them. Many have identified the long list of social programs, laws and legislation that protect us from ourselves: to limit choice in the interest of a “greater good”. The very idea of Super Delegates is an internal reflection of just that. We must be taken by the hand and led to the right path, like it or not. 

Howard Dean, a couple of weeks ago, represented the proportional delegate system as a way to insure that “minority rights and interests are represented”. However, were the Super delegates to have remained a shadow dynamic within the party as opposed to being brought to the fore by the closeness of the race would, in fact, Mr. Dean’s representation hold up? If, despite pressure to the contrary, the Super Delegates hold for Mrs. Clinton it will be the most significant “minority rights and representation” rip off in memory! Unintended consequences indeed.

Mr. Dean has also alluded to the dangers of an ongoing nomination fight and the possible need to get the candidates together to “work something out”. Does working something out mean disenfranchising some millions of voters? Did the primaries do nothing more than set the stage for a “deal”? That idea does not smack of minority rights and representation. It smacks of inside politics.  

Mrs. Clinton, to significant criticism in hindsight, fundamentally ignored most of the caucus states. Could it have been a case of counting on the early commitments of Super delegates to replace those points of inattention?

It is clear that Mrs. Clinton’s strategy was to close the deal on Super Tuesday. It is also clear to all except the most blinded true believers that the Clinton’s will do nearly anything to win. The axiom about being careful with wounded animals applies here. As every day goes by the wound gets a little deeper and seems to resist healing. If the instincts of the Clinton’s remain consistent to their history, there is thunder on the horizon and a storm may be approaching.

The strategy of casting Mr. Obama as “the Black candidate” has been analyzed to death. However, what is again, striking is the “we’ll do anything” instincts of the Clinton’s. If they can’t be careful with the first Black candidate to have a realistic chance at the nomination heaven help the rest of us. If, the unintended consequence of the first “existential” Black President attempting to marginalize the first “real” Black candidate isn’t the ultimate irony I’m not sure what is. 

More from the “we’ll do anything file.” It is widely reported that Mrs. Clinton readily, nay gleefully, supported the Party’s position not to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations. This position made perfect sense to her at the time as the “we’ll win on Super Tuesday” strategy was in no apparent jeopardy. The immediate post Super Tuesday rhetoric was that they should be seated, that we can’t disenfranchise those voters because, well…….they voted for me. Any variety of surrogates have, understandably, been running this idea up the flagpole since, criticism not withstanding. 

The unintended consequence is that the absence of these two delegations makes the math almost impossible for either candidate short of a deal, seating Florida and Michigan, a redo, or a convention fight. 

The Florida and Michigan “unseating” is a clear signal that the party also assumed a Clinton Super Tuesday close out and were, inherently, discounting Mr. Obama. The party, at that time, had no problems with the potential disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan voters in advance, oops!   

Unintended consequence also appears in the form of ethical leadership. John Lewis announced that despite his commitment to Mrs. Clinton he would honor the will of his Congressional District and cast his Super Delegate vote for Mr. Obama. Good for you Mr. Lewis! However, Mr. Lewis’s statement is much more important than one vote. It’s a warning shot across the bow of the Democratic establishment by a universally beloved figure. The warning? That Super Delegates voting against the patterns in their districts or states risk real danger. Mr. Lewis is much more than just a single Black Congressman and the party knows it.

Democrats should be a little put off by all of this. The party assumed a winner, was prepared to disenfranchise voters in advance and held no respect Mr. Obama’s chances. Thank goodness, the Democrats have John Lewis.