Peggy Noonan’s article in last weekend’s Wall Street Journal talked, inter alia, about how the Internet “is restoring rhetoric as a [political] force.”* Instead of speeches being just a series of sound-bits, perfect for inclusion on the evening news, the Internet is turning politicians back to real, substantive speeches:
“When Gov. Mitch Daniels made his big speech – a serious, substantive one – two weeks ago, Drudge had the transcript and video up in a few hours. Gov. Chris Christie's big speech was quickly on the net in its entirety.”
She continued with a story out of Wisconsin:
“Look what happened a year ago to a Wisconsin businessman named Ron Johnson. He was thinking of running for the Senate against an incumbent, Democratic heavy-hitter Russ Feingold. He started making speeches talking about his conception of freedom. They were serious, sober and not sound-bitey at all. A conservative radio host named Charlie Sykes got hold of a speech Mr. Johnson gave at a Lincoln Day dinner in Oshkosh. He liked it and read it aloud on his show for 20 minutes. … The audience listened and loved it. A man called in and said, ‘Yes, yes, yes!’ Another said, ‘I have to agree with everything that guy said.’ Mr. Johnson decided to run because of that reaction, and in November he won.”
But what fascinated me, being from Illinois, about this story was something that Ms. Noonan may not have even noticed. Look at when Mr. Johnson made his speech: At a Lincoln Day dinner – in 2010. And he decided to run for Senate after that.
In Illinois, on the other hand, where we hold elections for the convenience of the politicians, instead of the voters, we had our primary election in 2010 before Mr. Johnson even made his speech. Candidates who wanted to run in November of 2010 started collecting signatures to get on the ballot in either September or October of 2009, which is ridiculous. And they had to start getting organized to get the signatures before that.
I understand the February primary was a result of Illinois moving up its primary in 2008 to help Barack Obama get the Democratic presidential nomination – and to increase the importance of Illinois in the presidential nomination process. I also understand that Illinois has now moved its primary back to March, where it was before 2008.
But that still puts the primary a month earlier than it was in the 1960s, when it was in April, and it still puts it at a time aimed more at helping incumbents stay in office than at letting the voters have a choice. Even with a primary in March, nominating petitions have to be circulated in November, or maybe early December, the year before the election. Who is going to do that? Incumbents. Professional politicians.
To get better government in Illinois, we need better people in office. And to get better people in office, we need to open the process up so it serves the voters, instead of the professional politicians. One of the ways to do that would be to move the primary back as far as possible, to the middle or end of May, if possible, so people wouldn’t have to decide to run more than a year before the election.
If we want to have an early primary so we can be important in the presidential nominating process, we can have an early election – but just for president. Our regular primary should still be later. The professional politicians, who don’t want a later primary, will act all concerned about the extra cost and will say we can’t afford it. But what they really mean is that they like early primaries because it helps them stay in office.
We need to have our primary as late as possible so we can get the best possible candidates running for office. If that means two primaries in presidential election years, we can afford it. What we can’t afford is primaries set for the convenience of incumbents and professional politicians.
-----------
* Peggy Noonan, “The Internet Helps Us Get Serious,” The Wall Street Journal, February 26, 2011.
Comments