Is This Any Way To Elect A President?

Journalists and bloggers are by no means immune to the power of nostalgia. In the old days, they say, the Presidential race didn't start 2 years out. Candidates announced early in the election year, maybe ran in a couple of primaries (separated by weeks or even months), or maybe entered no primaries at all. Party leaders at the National Conventions then made a decision in light of the best information they had (which included but was not limited to primary results) as to which candidate had the best chance to win.

Or so the story goes.

In reality, Presidential elections have changed much less than we like to believe. Potential candidates have always spent 2+ years positioning themselves for the race and trying to line up support. They have always looked to powerful institutional players and wealthy contributors to build up a political base. If you don't believe me, go read The Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party, or the beginning of A Team of Rivals, or The Making of the President 1960. You'd be amazed how little has changed.

Those romanced by the old mixed system of primaries + convention to determine nominations (which ran from about 1900 to 1968) tend to neglect the fact that the voters and the broad swathe of party activists had very little influence on who was nominated. And they tend to ignore that the Conventions weren't interested in who would be the best President, but who could win the election.

Matt Yglesias is right about one thing - there has been a decided shift in power from party elites to the media. Starting with John Kennedy, the road to the White House has lain through the Washington press corps. No media attention means no institutional support means no money means no voters means defeat. Evan Bayh saw this reality and wisely abandoned a Presidential run. Obama and Hillary, McCain & Guiliani (and to a lesser extent Edwards) are adored by the press because they make good copy. Who ever heard of Tom Vilsack?

Selecting a presidential nominee has never been about substance or qualifications. It has always been two things: electability and the at least grudging support of every element of the party coalition. That's it.

Does this mean that the system couldn't be improved? Of course it could. But we live in a media-dominated, celebrity-obsessed culture. Do you really think that our elections are somehow not going to be media-dominated and celebrity-obsessed? I'd love to break the power of the Washington press over national politics. I just don't see how to do it.