Democrats often bend rules and disregard precedents for short-term political gains. They once championed the filibuster as a tool to protect minority rights but abolished it when Republicans used it similarly. Now, the prospect of replacing Joe Biden mid-election cycle is creating a movement, an even more alarming breach of precedent for future elections that could potentially destabilize our electoral process.
Earlier this week, James Carville not only called for Biden to drop out but also proposed an open and transparent process for replacing him.
Carville proposed that the Democratic Party host four historic town halls, one in each major region of the United States, before the Democratic National Convention in August. Former Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton would moderate these town halls. Carville believes these events would attract a large viewership, similar to the Super Bowl.
They wouldn't, but, to quote Biden, "Anyway."
The former presidents would guide the selection of candidates for these town halls. Obama and Clinton would choose eight leading contenders, including Vice President Kamala Harris. Carville suggests that organizers could also consult Democratic governors in the selection process to ensure practicality. He emphasized the need to limit the number of candidates to ensure substantive discussions rather than mere sound bites.
These town halls would provide a platform for Americans to get a fresh look at Harris and other Democratic candidates, allowing Democratic delegates to evaluate and "stress-test" these candidates before voting at the convention. Carville expresses trust in the delegates' ability to make a majority decision in what he calls an open and transparent fashion.
Democratic strategist Douglas Schoen sounds like he's on board with Carville's idea. "Indeed, there’s no doubt Biden has lost the confidence of his party and the country. I believe the solution — and indeed, a great opportunity for the Democrats — is a truly open, transparent, “blitz primary” that could lead to a truly open convention," he writes in a piece for The Hill. "Such an event, if executed properly, would no doubt galvanize the electorate and indeed, the whole country. The unconventional strategy, the likes of which have never been seen before, would generate great excitement and a commitment to a new Democratic Party, represented by a fresh face and a bold message."
I think both Carville and Schoen greatly overestimate the popularity of such an event, especially considering how late in the game it would take place. But they also fail to account for the fact that even though they can say words like "open" and "transparent" until they're blue in the face, in the end, they'd still be taking the choice of nominee out of the hands of the voters and putting it in the hands of a select few in the party. In an election where they've tried to dub Trump and Republicans as "threats to our democracy," they'd be handing Republicans the opportunity to flip that script without much effort.
But let's forget all that and get to the real problem here. Let's say that Democrats succeed in convincing Biden to drop out and come up with an unprecedented process for selecting a new nominee. It would set a disastrous precedent.
Such a move would signal that the elites of political parties can override the primary process and the will of the voters whenever it suits their strategic interests, effectively disenfranchising those who participated in selecting the original nominee.
Contrary to the rosy pictures that Carville and Schoen paint, this mini/blitz primary would erode public trust in the electoral system because it would undermine the stability and predictability of democratic processes, which are fundamental to a healthy republic.
