Stanley Fish thinks that there is no ethical concern relating to the superdelegates — they should not stand on principles, because principles are not in play.
Essentially, Fish’s position is that superdelegates should vote however they want because them’s the rules. He’s absolutely right to note that "when the group NoSuperDelegates urges the DNC ‘to not seat the
Super-Delegates . . . and instead nominate the candidate leading in the
delegate count,’ what it is really urging is the jettisoning of the
rules because its members fear the outcome that following them might
produce."
That said, his position also comes down to the fact that our government is structurally antidemocratic. This is of course true, but somehow Fish overlooks the fact that this is also bad, and results only from the inherent conservatism of the Founders and the Constitution. Contrary to what Fish might think, it can "be said that [the superdelegates’] very existence is an affront to the workings of
democracy," despite "large parts of this democracy work[ing] in just the way the
superdelegates were intended to."
Even if we’re stuck with the dictatorial presidency, the electoral college, and the absurd representation in the U.S. Senate, it does not therefore follow that the Democratic Party should follow suit. The Democrats should be leaders on this issue and move toward a more democratic system (of course, if they were capable of leading, we wouldn’t have had these last eight years!), although whether they should suddenly consider themselves obligated to do so mid-nomination is a somewhat trickier question.
Accidental Blogger 
8 responses to “Fish(y) Superdelegates (Joe)”
Of course, whenever Fish proclaims anything in the form, “There is no…,” we can bet he’s being hyperbolic. The fact that he is so to good effect is what makes him both a joy and an irritant to read. He does in fact import ethical considerations into the very matter his thesis takes to be devoid of them when he describes “appropriate” political questions.
What I find curious is that while he has little trouble accepting that a purported democracy nevertheless involves a number of undemocratic components, he (at least for the sake of this column) bristles at the “nonsense” opinions of the ethical issues surrounding superdelegates because they neglect the rules by which the superdelegates play. While the dialectic of the former achieves synthesis for him, the latter remains unresolved in conflict. What’s the difference?
LikeLike
Also, it could be that being a Hillary supporter (I think), Fish would like to see the “unethical” privilege of the super-delegates preserved during this year’s nomination process.
The Dems’ race to the nomination is taking on all the unsavory aspects of sausage making (may be because democracy is messy?). Identity and religious politics, a power struggle between the royal dynasty and the upstart, back room machinations involving bribed and coerced party operators. The pompous super-delegates (isn’t the name itself undemocratic?)should be very careful what they do, lest they totally alienate ordinary voters.
Whew, what a circus of only clowns and no lion tamers!
LikeLike
Here is more from Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos on the ethics of deciding the nomination via super-delegates.
LikeLike
I think Kos is being ridiculous. He complains that Clinton is trying to win by throwing a “coup” with the superdelegates, which would put the party in a “civil war.” It’s time for her to get out of the race. Yet at the same time, he criticizes her for not running a 50 state campaign.
That is, the voters need to speak, but Clinton needs to get and stop insisting that the voters who haven’t yet spoken get a chance to speak.
Put me in Sandy Levinson’s camp: the ongoing race is a good thing because it is more democratic than the alternative.
LikeLike
Incidentally, while superdelegates are inherently undemocratic, it’s far from clear to me that they would necessarily be “thwarting the will of the people” by voting for Clinton to a greater proportional extent than she has won of the pledged delegates. That’s because I’m far from convinced that the pledged delegate totals are themselves democratic.
LikeLike
I’m catching a whiff of Wollheim’s paradox here, a problem that I admit plagues me incessantly. Another version, of course, is Groucho Marx’s.
LikeLike
Joe,
I haven’t called for Clinton to get out of the race as some others have, although realistically I see very little chance of her winning the nomination by enough votes and regular delegates at this point. Let her run all she wants and yeah, let all 50 states speak. But there is clearly an effort under way by her camp to game the system here. Repeatedly the Clinton camp tries to count the votes in Florida and Michigan as they stand now, after agreeing to the rules set by the Democratic Party.
Also, I will tell you what is wrong with the super delegates going against the total popular votes and delegates. When the sages of the Democratic Party put the idea of superdelegates in place, they probably hadn’t seen a scenario where the loser will insist on making up the delegate deficit with their help. More likely what they had in mind was having a mechanism in place of helping a winner with the most delegates but not the 2025 required to win, over the finish line. This happened once before – in 1984 in the contest between Walter Mondale and Gary Hart.
What the Hillary camp would like is something quite different – they want to undo the results of the general primaries. The Supreme Court stepped in and did that for Bush in 2000 and now Clinton hopes that the Supers will do it for her. If you don’t find that appalling, I don’t know what to say. As long as delegates are awarded proportionally in keeping with popular votes, what’s your complaint? Or we should change the rules and have winner-take all as the Republicans do. But is that more democratic? One can call for an overhaul of the current system to make it more democratic, whichever way it makes sense. But the rules are in place and Clinton knew it when the game began. True, the superdelegate rule too is in place and indeed they can vote any way they wish. And perhaps they will and Hillary might become the nominee even after she loses in popular votes and pledged delegates. But surely, you can see why this will P.O. some people.
If people are too stupid and their votes have little value (which usually means that they are not voting for the candidate of our choice), why not institute the poll tax or give more weight to the votes of Ph.Ds or white males or any other adjustment we’d like to make to the electoral process?
BTW, Sandy Levinson is correct. Why don’t you explain why it would be democratic for either Clinton or Obama to win with the help of super-delegates if they have less votes and delegates at the end of the primaries? I would like to understand.
LikeLike
The only scenario in which the super-delegates overriding the popular vote will be acceptable and understandable is if the winning candidate is so mired in a late breaking unsavory scandal that despite a lead in the primary votes and pledged delegates, that candidate becomes clearly unelectable in the general election.
But unelectability of an opponent should not be determined by the losing candidate on the basis of inflated claims of experience in the White House or cherry picking of the quality of the contests and states won. The primary voters have already taken that into consideration.
LikeLike