The Democratic Party
Today’s primaries prompted a few thoughts that I think are worth sharing.
If the Democratic Party has any one unifying theme, it is providing influence and power to those who are marginalized by society. The downside of this, is that the marginalized by society are quite likely to make bad decisions. In some cases this is a result of the marginalization (less educational opportunities, a worse home environment) and in other cases the marginalization is a result of poor decisions. Now of course luck exists, some people are bad off simply because of some bad breaks, but in general I think this holds true.
It is curious, to me at least, that the Democratic nomination process almost explicity acknowledges this fact, Super delegates are able to ’save the party’ from the poor decisions of its members.
I noted to some friends during the 2000 Florida election debate how interesting it was that the tactics of the two parties actually mirrored some of their core philosophies. The Democrats basically took that line that people needed help to vote correctly, and every effort should be undertaken to provide that help, while Republicans provided a narrative that people should be self reliant and if they can’t follow the rules, then their votes shouldn’t count. I don’t know if the arguments would have been different if the situations were reversed of course, but I do find it somewhat comforting that even in a fairly legalistic argument the core values of each party were reflected.
I think that the Democratic Primary process is another example of this. It both reflects the desire of the party to provide a voice for those who are weak, and a desire to protect those same people from their own decisions. Now, I have some disagreements with this philosophy, and I have even more disagreements with how it is often implimented, but it is nice for me to see the consistancy of this philosophy with the proceedures set up by the party, even in such an arcane area as nominee selection.
Interesting points, although I’m not sure I agree with your characterization of liberalism.
Speaking for myself (not for liberalism), it seems to me that choices made by individuals factor into the outcome of their lives, but that’s just one factor. Other things, like political power, macroeconomics, etc. play roles, too, and a greater role more often than not. I realize that it’s anecdotal evidence, but in my experience with lots of people across class lines, I think that a cross-section of any economic class of people will have a pretty similar mix of virtuous and non-virtuous people.
However, I find measuring the role of such factors tedious enough to make me think, who cares anyway? “Enlightened salf-interest” plays a bigger role in the political choices I’ve made than that other stuff. I think that I’ll be better off if I live in a society and economy where the great majority of people are better off, too, whether it’s by helping them out or by some other means, even if they’ve made bad choices.