THOMAS MITCHELL: Those raucous caucuses were partisan perfection - Opinion

PRINT THIS Popular

Jan. 27, 2008
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

THOMAS MITCHELL: Those raucous caucuses were partisan perfection

THOMAS MITCHELL
MORE COLUMNS

Anytime someone makes a point about the power of the news media, I perk up and take notice. After all, it is my ox being gored.

Such was the case when Columbia School of Law professor and election law expert Nathaniel Persily was quoted in the Review-Journal this past week in a story in which many people bemoaned the raucousness of the caucuses and pined for a nice, clean, civilized primary election.

Most Popular Stories

EDITORIAL: A pre-9/11 approach to terror

LETTERS: Public-sector workers are still doing well

LETTERS: Harry Reid: Working hard for all Americans

EDITORIAL: 'That's the ticket!'

VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: Barefooted, gun-toting hayseeds?

LETTERS: A giant octopus threatens rural Nevada

LETTERS: Senator just trying to kiss up to Harry Reid

LETTERS: America should try terrorists in open court

EDITORIAL: Religious freedom

GEOFF SCHUMACHER: UNLV needs new stadium

In fact, state Sen. Dina Titus said she would introduce a bill reinstating a presidential primary. She was quoted as saying, "This notion of neighbors getting together with neighbors to talk about politics, that's just not Nevada.

"What I found in my caucus is that the meeting didn't lead to collaboration, cooperation and a good discussion. It led to hostility. It's too complicated."

This from a UNLV political science professor.

Professor Persily responded to such talk with this: "The move toward primaries has transferred power away from political parties to the media, who are then in a position to describe someone as having momentum."

Who am I to argue. He's right. And I for one don't want to be saddled with that power -- or the blame.

This was not a state-run election. This was a nominating process by the state's two largest political parties -- one in which the members of parties with two drastically differing philosophies are supposed to select the presidential candidate best suited to represent them.

Why should it be some hermitical and aseptic method akin to slouching on the couch and text messaging "American Idol" -- 555 for Obama, 666 for Clinton and 000 for Edwards?

No, with a nice, rough-and-tumble caucus, people have to stand up and defend their positions, actually state reasons and address issues, grapple with facts and weigh values face to face with someone who disagrees. But many appear to prefer to sit and do nothing more than read the newspaper, watch cable news and listen to talk radio, reaching conclusions without ever having to test their mettle in polemic combat.

Such a battle of minds would be the ideal, but in reality, at least with this virgin caucus attempt, the argumentation tended to be rather shallow. At one Democratic caucus site, the gym was packed with people decked out in T-shirts and pins engaged in persuasion by chanting "Hill-ar-y, Hill-ar-y" while stomping their feet on the bleachers in time to the chant. This was countered by the syllogistic logic of, "Yes, we can. Yes, we can."

At least it was in English. As for what it meant, who knows?

One woman was trying to garner the requisite 10 supporters in her precinct to qualify for a single delegate for John Edwards at the county convention. She was telling the uncommitted to give the underdog a chance. She assembled 11.

But even this tame exercise was too much for many, as our electronic mail bag attested.

One typical reader shouted in all caps, "YOUR NAME IS ON THE BALLOT -- that is against my civil liberties in my opinion."

"Throughout the process," wrote another, "my anger at having my friends and neighbors know how I was voting kept irritating me. Who you vote for is a private matter and is no one's business. I hope Nevada reconsiders and brings back a primary."

Still another politely recommended, "Whoever came up with this idiotic idea should be shot. Meanwhile, let's change our way to selecting candidates to a civilized format, with every eligible voter being able to make his/her selection in private and in secret ..."

Sorry, democracy is not a tea-sipping quilting bee. It should be an eye-gouging, club-swinging ruction in which some get bloodied and the best candidates survive because they can gather strong support by building up their own credentials, while pointing out the flaws in their opponents.

This is party politics.

As for me, I'll take the advice of an old friend:

"I have never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I am capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all."

-- Thomas Jefferson

March 13, 1789

Thomas Mitchell is editor of the Review-Journal and writes about the role of the press and access to public information. He may be contacted at 383-0261 or via e-mail at tmitchell@reviewjournal.com.

Share & Save

Leave Your Comment	6 Reader Comments
Terms & Conditions The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor. Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Please enter your name Name: Please enter your email Email: Please enter a comment COMMENTS : (word count limit is 300) You have reached the maximum number of words allowed Current Word Count: Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background. Kevin Rodela wrote on April 20, 2008 06:25 PM: First of all, there is a cover up among those in the ivory towers of academia and the press is complicit in. A systematic persecution of a Soviet-esque nature does exist against some of our brightest scientists. Highly credentialed molecular biologists who have a genuine love of science are simply honestly stating where the evidence leads them. ‘Their findings contravene the sacred cow of Darwinist thought and conventional wisdom among the “consensus”. Not all of the ostracized are “evangelical fanatics” or even Christians for that matter. The recent critique of “Expelled” the movie that your newspaper published in a recent edition is a disservice to your readers and subscribers. In fact it was a reaffirmation of everything that the movie ascertained. To dismiss those of us who ascribe to intelligent design is tantamount to denying the holocaust… a small part of the one to two hundred million people who were mass murdered by their own governments (more than the entire span of human history) in the twentieth century alone – also referred to as the “Age of Athiesm”. An article written by Dr. Herbert Douglas chronicles how Hitler, Stalin, Pohl Pot, Chairman Mao along with many others had been disciples of Darwin and Nietze. This is also another consequence of Darwinist thought that the movie informs the viewer of. In this age of cover-up, dishonesty and political correctness from our leaders, celebrities and elites, I found this hard hitting, probing honesty to be quite refreshing Thomas Mitchell wrote on January 27, 2008 11:01 AM: GOP balloting was not a "vote" but merely a straw poll. The selection of delegates was handled openly... Nuevo Americano wrote on January 27, 2008 08:55 AM: I never agree with guy, but he is right this time. At our site, an Edward supporter walked out apparently mad because her candidate did not have enough votes. She did not want to stay and ddiscuss/debate with the other voters. Is it any wonder why our politician act the same way as this lady in Washington and Carson City. If you do not want to support your vote and choice with your neighbors and friends you maybe making the wrong choice for our country and a choice for your own interest. sheepdog2709 wrote on January 27, 2008 06:49 AM: You describe the democrat chaotic caucus very well. I am sure intemidation was present and many voted under duress and perhaps fear of not voting as "their boss" "their spouse"or "their friend" was voting. And of curese the fact that anyone could register to vote and participate in the dem caucus on the spot. Perhaps you should report on the quickly done, well organized, private ballots caucus of the Republicans. A caucus which permitted citizens who registered to vote 30 days in advance to hold structured dialog and cast private votes. sheepdog2709 wrote on January 27, 2008 06:48 AM: You describe the democrat chaotic caucus very well. I am sure intemidation was present and many voted under duress and perhaps fear of not voting as "their boss" "their spouse"or "their friend" was voting. And of curese the fact that anyone could register to vote and participate in the dem caucus on the spot. Perhaps you should report on the quickly done, well organized, private ballots caucus of the Republicans. A caucus which permitted citizens who registered to vote 30 days in advance to hold structured dialog and cast private votes. helen weils wrote on January 27, 2008 06:42 AM: I respectfully disagree. I'm out of town for the winter and would LOVE to be able to cast a vote for my favorite, Ron Paul.