The Citizen Conversation with … Elaine Kamarck
by Clare O'Neil on March 18, 2008 in Citizen Conversation with..., HKS News
Months ago, few but the most hardened of political operatives had ever heard of superdelegates. Today, all but the most ignorant of observers has an opinion on the merits of this peculiar, powerful breed of Democratic Party insiders.
It comes as no surprise that HKS has its very own superdelegate, who - when she’s not moving and shaking on the Democratic National Committee - researches innovation in contemporary government from her office in Littauer.
Prof. Elaine Kamarck came to HKS in 1997 following an accomplished career in politics. She served in the Clinton White House from 1993 to 1997 and received her Ph.D in political science from the University of California, Berkeley.
Clare O’Neil (MPP2) recently caught up with Prof. Kamarck to discuss her role as superdelegate, the classic debate between delegates and representatives, and the tough decisions ahead.
(For an explanation of superdelegates, please click here)
Q: Aren’t superdelegates just about concentrating power among the people who are already powerful? That seems a bit against the ethos of the Democratic Party.
A: Why is it against the ethos of the Democratic party? These people got elected. Ted Kennedy gets elected by the people, what’s wrong with that?
Q: Well, isn’t the usual process for the delegates to be elected by the broader party membership? That’s the source of the power of the whole party.
A: And Ted Kennedy doesn’t get elected by the party membership? Of course he does.
Q: Who are the superdelegates responsible to?
A: The people who elected them. But this is just a part of the classic argument about the meaning of representation - it’s as old as political theory. On the one hand, people think representatives should do exactly what their constituents voted them to do. But those representatives find themselves in situations their citizens never anticipated. And so in those instances, clearly representatives are free to do precisely what they want to do. Delegates are no different, whether they are superdelegates or actual delegates. The presumption is that they will vote the way their constituents want them to do.
Take my own example. I am an at-large delegate of the Democratic National Committee. That means that I was elected by all the National Committee delegates. So my responsibility is to the national Democratic Party. I also, however, vote in Massachusetts. I sit as a member of the of the Massachusetts delegates, though I am not elected by them.
Now. What am I to do? Hillary won in Massachusetts. Oh, so I am supposed to vote for Hillary. But if Obama wins the vote in the nation, should I vote for the person who won the most votes nationally - since in some sense, I am elected nationally, not just by Massachusetts?
Q: So…what do you think?
A: I’m not telling you! (Laughs.) That’s for you to figure out.
We’ve got many months for this to play out. I said I was for Hillary Clinton early on, and, so far, I still am. But people can change their minds and, frankly, so can the regular delegates.
Q: We’ve been hearing a lot in the newspapers about different parties trying to woo the superdelegates one way or the other. Have you experienced a lot of that recently?
A: None at all, because I’m pledged for Hillary, and Massachusetts went for Hillary. So there’s no cross-pressure there.
Q: Knowing what you do about the other superdelegates and the Democratic Party, what do you think might persuade them to change their votes?
A: I think very little lobbying is going to work on these delegates. The superdelegates who expressed a preference early did so usually because they actually know the candidates, have a relationship with them, etc. They will take a long time to change their minds. The 300 or so who still haven’t expressed a preference are not going to express a preference until they see how the voters vote. Nobody is moving here.
Q: So we can expect months of deliberation?
A: Yes. There is no incumbent president here. This notion that [superdelegates] are going to be wooed with things … What things? A job at Bill Clinton’s Presidential Library in Little Rock? I don’t think so.
Q: Well it might work on the 21-year old kid in Florida…
A: When incumbent presidents do this, they have a lot of things to give out. When a non-incumbent does this, they have nothing.
Q: They can make promises, surely?
A: Yeah, but that would be stupid.
Q: Why would it be stupid? It seems like the obvious thing to do to me.
A: Well, first of all, most of these people don’t need somebody making them a job offer. A United States Senator, or a Governor…what are they going to do? Make them an offer of Assistant Secretary? It’s not going to be very attractive. And for anybody else, it’s going to look crass - like bribery. This is not happening. This is a paranoid fantasy.
Q: I guess it’s exciting to think that the superdelegates are suddenly so important.
A: What’s exciting is that there’s never been a race this close. And this got triggered after Super Tuesday when people looked at what was practically a tie. If there really was a literal tie, the superdelegates would make a difference. We’re not there yet.
Comments
Got something to say?
