Instead of Primaries, U.S. Would Be Better Off ‘Drawing Straws’

Is the system of American electoral primaries really in the national interest? According to some on the other side of the Atlantic, the answer is an emphatic no. Philippe Marliere writes for France’s Rue 89, that not only are people around the world ‘exasperated,’ and demanding to know, ‘why the BBC is paying such costly attention to non-decisive votes more than ten months before the presidential election,’ he continues that, ‘With few exceptions, the primaries create a democratic parody, from which the main socio-political stereotypes and prejudices emerge reinforced. … One could laugh at such practices if they weren’t about to appear in Europe.’

By Philippe Marlière, Translated By Kate Davis February 19, 2008 France – Rue89 – Original Article (French)

Never have the American primary elections generated such a strong and sustained interest in the rest of the world. Media coverage of the first vote held in the state of Iowa sparked a media frenzy that was out of all proportion to the importance of the event. The extraordinary candidacies of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on the Democratic side, and of John McCain on the Republican side, only partially explain this craze.

THE PUBLIC FATIGUE

Would one say that the American primaries are as “addictive” as the Super Bowl or the football World Cup? Certainly not. The site of the BBC site was recently besieged by members of the public complaining of “primary fatigue.” Some, exasperated, demanded to know why the BBC was paying such costly attention to non-decisive votes more than ten months before the presidential election.

One might argue that it is a fundamental stage in humanity’s most important election. That would therefore justify this level of media deployment, even if it means neglecting coverage of important national and European events. After all, don’t we all indirectly share in the fate of the most influential democracy in the “free world”?

Proponents of the primaries believe that these elections display American democracy at its best. Record participation in these primaries stand in contrast to the usually mediocre participation in the presidential vote. Aren’t these primaries an essential part of citizen participation in the political process? Don’t they allow the organization of debates that provide information on the intentions of the different competitors?

REWARDING CENTRISTS

In fact, up to now the primaries have not fulfilled these functions. The breakthrough of evangelist Michael Huckabee forced John McCain to reposition himself on the themes of morality and order, which are so dear to the Republican right. The differences between Obama and Clinton are blurred on international issues (a former supporter of armed intervention, Mrs. Clinton vaguely promises to withdraw troops from Iraq, while Mr. Obama doesn’t distinguish himself clearly from the bi-partisan consensus on the “war on terror”) and national issues (health insurance). The media focus advocates a centrist consensus and neglects atypical candidates (Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich).

The candidates therefore spar cautiously and commit themselves to more or less identical positions. For good or ill, these candidates become the stars of a soap opera with a huge cast.

REWARDING CLICHÉS

More than a month after the start of this media-political spectacle, what have we gleaned from these primaries? The tears of Hillary in New Hampshire; the maladroit aggressiveness of Bill; the elegant gestures of Barack. The debate is “elevated” by instances when the commentators discuss the sex or skin color of the candidates. The paroxysm of the analysis goes to those who make generalizations – often with no scientific grounding – on the “Black vote” or the “Latino vote.” With few exceptions, the primaries create a democratic parody, from which the main socio-political stereotypes and prejudices emerge reinforced.

READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing coverage of the U.S. elections from around the world.