A Reason to Endorse
An op-ed by Ethan DemmeIt’s endorsement time again, time for the barrage of emails, phone calls, calling for and against candidates and for and against endorsement. I’d like to step back and look at some of the reasons why I believe endorsement is a good thing.
Since this time around we are discussing this during a senate race I’ll use a senatorial story to share some of my reasons.
In 1913 the 16th amendment to the constitution was ratified. This amendment was the result of a populist push by progressives around the country, specifically by Democrat William Jennings Bryan. The 16th amendment changed the way senators were elected, from an election by the state legislature to direct election by the people of the state.
Fast forward to 2012 where we see a similar populist push led against the Republican party of Pennsylvania to end endorsement by elected state committee representation and to just have a direct vote during the primary.
Is the GOP’s endorsement process a holdover from a bygone era or is it a valuable principle rooted in the very fabric a Republican form of government? I believe that the endorsement process is much more in line with our founding fathers vision for our country than a direct appeal to the populace.
It is the right of individuals and organizations to endorse and support any candidate they choose. It is the duty of the Republican state committee, as elected representatives of registered republicans around the state to endorse and select a standard bearer for their party.
Pennsylvania also enjoys a primary election whereby voters can accept or reject an endorsed candidate as well as a general election whereby they choose, by direct election, the senator for the state. Being for endorsement does not mean you are against a contested primary election. Competition is critical. Competition for endorsements, competition for money, competition for airtime and competition for votes on election day.
- Endorsement is a representative form of selection that is in line with our foundation as a republic.
- Endorsement is a competitive process by which candidates can gauge their support without having to raise a lot of money.
- Endorsement is a process that allows for in depth questioning and analysis that goes beyond the typical 30 second media soundbites.
- Endorsement is an open process that any member of the party can choose to go through.
Parties endorse, people endorse, groups endorse, tea parties endorse, it’s all a part of politics in a free society and I don’t think people should try and restrict that.
(Ethan Demme is the Founder of Keystone Conservative. His e-mail address is ethan@keystoneconservative.com) Permission to reprint is granted with credit to the author.No related posts.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Ethan,
The idea that the Founders wanted party endorsements is absurd. The Founders hated the idea of political parties entirely (at least until Hamilton and Jefferson realized parties could be used to foster their personal ambition). Don’t forget Washington’s farewell address:
“All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.”
Further, you appeal to the notion of our “elected representatives” within the party. But yet the party rules work against this. As a Cumberland County voter, the individuals I elected will be REQUIRED to support a candidate that the state committee chooses, even if none of the Cumberland county delegation supports him. This sounds like the majority tyranny Madison warned about I want to know who MY elected party representatives support, not who those in Lancaster or Bucks or Erie endorse.
But the case for why state committee shouldn’t endorse is much simpler – they suck at it. Examples: Lynn Swann, Mike Fisher, Vic Stabile, and … wait for it… Arlen Specter in 2004. He ended his term as a Democrat, after voting for the stimulus and Obamacare. Great job, state committee.
Rob Gleason himself makes the case why not endorsing, and letting the primary process go forward, is a strong course of action, and helps both the party and the eventual winner: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gbGTBDRMBqJUyowGmKo1Gn1ETNDw?docId=87808b8bf0564c4dac78b3794df1ec94
The founding fathers may not have like political parties but they all joined and/or founded them.
You also elect delegates to the convention and thought they are not bound delegates they normally support the results of the full state. Similarly the state committee members are not bound to support the endorsed candidate but normally do (there are exceptions, notably Lancaster in 2004).
Sure there are some examples of not the smartest picks but we do have quite a few good picks as well, notably Pat Toomey in 2010.
Gleason’s case is in reference to the presidential where state committee members don’t have 3 months of personal contact with the candidates and share the same information as the voters.
Your average voter doesn’t even know who the senate candidates are let alone can they state their policy positions. Presidential and Senate is apples and oranges.