Against the backdrop of the Clinton/Obama delegate fight, the lunacy of modern liberalism plays out.
After losing North Carolina and barely winning Indiana, Hillary Clinton’s hopes of capturing the Democrat presidential nomination look as dim as Jimmy Carter.
Ever the fighter, Sen. Clinton carries on. And in those dim hopes flicker twin embers–the superdelegates and the Michigan and Florida delegates.
It is entirely fitting for Sen. Clinton to focus her strategy on these twin embers, for they glow with all the absurdity of leftist policy.
Michigan and Florida are in controversy because those two states held their primaries earlier than the Democratic National Committee allowed–because the two states resented the assumed power of states like Iowa and New Hampshire, which held the earliest caucuses and primaries. In other words, the two states now in contention scheduled their primaries in homage the same vice on which so much of liberal policy is based–envy.
But the DNC, offended by such a show of state independence, refused to seat their delegates. Power must be centralized, under modern liberalism, with decisions made by backroom bureaucrats.
The states went ahead and held their early primaries anyway, and Sen. Clinton won both. And now the Democrats can’t decide what to do about the states’ elected delegates. Of course, this dilemma was foreseeable from the moment the DNC decided to disenfranchise the two states’ delegates. But thinking through the law of unintended consequences would put the kibosh on liberal agenda items far more dangerous than a schoolyard squabble over who gets to go first.
Then there are the superdelegates. The function of these Washington insiders is to prevent the popularly elected delegates from choosing a nominee other than the one favored by the Party’s elites. In other words, the Democrat elites don’t trust the demos to choose a nominee any more than they trust us to protect ourselves from violence, determine appropriate policies for local schools, or agree on transaction terms in the marketplace.
In 1857, Lord Thomas MacCauley observed:
A democracy cannot survive as a permanent form of government. It can last only until its citizens discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority (who vote) will vote for those candidates promising the greatest benefits from the public purse, with the result that a democracy will always collapse from loose fiscal policies, always followed by a dictatorship.
But can the Democrat Party survive becoming a dictatorship?