From the editor of Dissent: So here is an interesting question: should the Democrats have a party? No, I don’t mean a premature celebration of unity or electoral victory. I mean a political party. There needs to be a far-reaching discussion of what political organization should mean in this country—whatever the results in November. Nominating a candidate is not the same thing as electing one, as David Greenberg points out in his important lead article in this issue. Let’s hope it initiates a debate.
Why, for instance, should there be open primaries? Why should Republicans and independents vote to select the candidate of a party to which they have no commitment, with which they have no identification? Why should Democrats and independents be able to vote in Republican contests? Joining an American political party requires no more than a registration tick, and that itself has pretty limited meaning. Political commitments in a democracy need to be more than a tick.
======
"Primary Obligations: Why the Democrats Should Fix the Nominating System."
David Greenberg, Dissent (Summer 2008): 35-40. [not online yet]
No comments:
Post a Comment