For the majority of Boston College students, last week's "Super Tuesday" primary elections were an opportunity to see the country's reaction to several months of campaigning by the major party candidates. Most students also probably thought that both races would be long over by the time the last results came in Tuesday night, firmly entrenching the two major party candidates in their positions for the majority of the remainder of 2008. Last Tuesday's primary results, however, did anything but clear up the races, as both Republicans and Democrats split most of the votes, leaving all but the most politically aware students with a muddled view of what the various primaries meant and what the country was possibly thinking.
In response to this very confusing start to the primary season, the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life sponsored the event "Assessing the 2008 Super Primary." The event, featuring several speakers from the Boisi Center and the political science department at BC, was held in Gasson 305 on Feb. 13. The featured speakers included professors Marc Landy and Kay Lehman Schlozman of the political science department, and professor Alan Wolfe, director of the Boisi Center.
The night began with a comment about the novelty of this particular election by Wolfe. "We originally had planned this event to be reflecting on the frontrunners who had secured the nomination of their party … It turned out to be a little more complicated than that."
The three panelists then began the discussion with brief explanations about the evolution of the primary system and some history about primary elections since 1960. "Parties are a peculiarly American institution," Schlozman said.
The process of electing a candidate by primary goes back to 1960, when Hubert Humphrey, the sitting vice president, won the Democratic Party nomination despite entering a single primary. This prompted the Democratic Party to create a committee, headed by George McGovern, that created a set of rules for selecting the party's candidate for president. These rules included that the candidate had to win a certain number of delegates by running in and winning primary elections, and that those primary elections had to be held in the calendar year. Similar regulations were soon adopted by the Republican Party, and the primary system of the post-1960 election was born.
Following analysis on the history of primary elections, the panelists reflected on the Super Tuesday results.
All three panelists pointed out the novelty of this election, especially the ongoing battle between Obama and Clinton. They also observed several factors that distinguished this election from past elections. "This is the first election since 1952 where there has been neither an incumbent president nor vice president running," Landy said. He remarked that this made the primary season remarkably fresh.
The panelists discussed the primaries of both parties thus far. They all agreed that McCain had wrapped up the Republican nomination, so they focused more on the coming weeks for the Democrats. A main point of observation among all the panelists was that there really are not many policy differences between the main candidates for the Democratic Party. The only sticking points were the health care policies in which Hillary Clinton insisted that the federal government have a mandate for the new policy whereas Obama did not insist on such a mandate. Landy said, "They [Clinton and Obama] don't have enough to fight about." Landy, however, was quick to point out that, "it doesn't mean there are not serious issues at stake." Landy also observed that the candidates who are doing the best in his opinion, Obama and McCain, can trace their success back to strong stances on the troop surge in Iraq beginning in 2006. "Obama has unvarnished opposition to the war, which helps him a lot," Landy said. "McCain was the only Republican who identified himself with the troop surge. He took the risk and he benefited."
Wolfe began his portion of the talk by taking an anti-primary stance for selecting the candidates for president. He said that professional politicians should select the candidates as opposed to average people who do not pay very much attention to the day-to-day workings of government. "When they [professional politicians] get the choice, they think mostly about which candidates will help the ticket from top to bottom," he said.
He also advocated against having primaries so early on in the year, as it made it more and more likely for people to base their selection on name recognition than the issues. Despite all of this, Wolfe said that the Republicans have chosen the candidate with the best chance of winning [McCain] and the Democrats have two candidates that they can be proud of.
Following the three statements by the panelists, the floor was opened up to a wide variety of questions from the audience. The subjects ranged from the effect of the media on modern politics to the ability of Facebook to mobilize a political movement.
Other questions included whether Obama's election would bring about as large of a political shift as Reagan's had in 1980 and what would happen if neither Democratic party candidate had enough delegates to win the nomination outright and the selection turned to the super delegates. For all in attendance, "Assessing the 2008 Super Primary" was a great way to prepare for one of the most interesting election years in a long time.
Be the first to comment on this article!