As I am treated for Lymphoma, with Chemotherapy and Radiation, certain things, as a Democrat, hit me pretty hard, other than the need for national health insurance.
I don't have any tolerance for our presidential candidates fighting with each other like third graders.
But, more importantly, I am astounded at the lack of interest in changing the way we put together our Plutocratic form of national elections.
After the 1968 Democratic Convention, which was more of a riot than a nominating event, US Senator Harold E. Hughes (IA.) and US Senator George McGovern (SD) along with young attorneys, Sandy Berger and Eli Siegal, instituted a more open nominating process, pushing aside the heavy control by party bosses.
Putting some balance into the process, Democratic voters were allowed more power in the selection of delegates aligned with their candidates.
Then, after the "Watergate" reforms, the Supreme Court knocked down many of the provisions on the basis of free speech.
What we have now is a patchwork of good and bad, when it comes to reforming our national election process and the amount of special interest money going into the coffers of Congressional as well as Presidential candidates.
I would guess, with my personal knowledge of past campaigns, the Presidential Candidates from our Democratic Party are spending about 90% of their time raising money.
The election will probably cost the winning candidate in November, 2008, about 500-million dollars.
That is a lot of special interest access to the President of the US in 2009.
Not all special interests are bad, and there is something to say about our style of open capitalistic democracy. While supporting workers rights, we must also protect industry from crippling legislation which hurts our companies on the international front, for example. Also, someone has to pay the taxes!
But, there is no energy in reforming the current way we elect our Presidential candidates.
The early big state primaries are tilted to the wealthiest candidates, or at least the most Establishment candidates at the time.
Too much money is flowing to too few candidates.
So, what can we, as small "d" democrats do about this situation?
1. Demand in 2012 that fewer open primaries with big states start in the winter of that year.
2. Have primaries in states where private television stations allow some free and equal time (not at 2am) for Presidential candidates for commercials and statements.
3. Allow a candidate to raise 25% of his or her money from one or more individuals. As long as it is reported, we'll know who has the influence. For example, when Democrats were looking for somebody to challenge LBJ on the war in Vietnam, one wealthy industrialist from Boston, gave Eugene McCarthy enough seed money to run in New Hampshire and challenge President Johnson.
This will also reduce the time that a credible candidate has to spend raising special interest money at $2,300 bucks a pop.
4. Reduce the number of open primaries, with alternate states getting preferential treatment every other national campaign season.
5. Have a Democratic Convention in a Union facility to fight out these reforms and change the way we hold our primaries.
There are other ideas...but this would be a start.
Thanks for reading:
Bob Kholos