Some recent events point to our need to reflect on what our nation is about. Primaries in both parties produced candidates appealing to the extremes of the electorate. Longtime Senators John Cornyn of Texas and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana lost their reelection bids due to a perceived lack of loyalty to Donald Trump. He endorsed their primary challengers, and his loyal base did his bidding. While these were the most prominent, the President also prompted other Republicans to retire amid primary challenges or the threat of one.

Democratic Socialists challenged more moderate Democrats with solid results in such Blue Strongholds as New York, Maine, and the District of Columbia. In one-party areas, the primary is the election.

No one believes either the Trump-backed or the Democratic Socialists’ nominees are stronger general-election contenders. In fact, in the Texas Senate race, Trump backed Ken Paxton in what is a safe seat with Cornyn, now in jeopardy.

If the actions of Donald Trump and the Democratic Socialists result in weaker general election candidates, why would you back the less electable? Power! If you’re contemplating a career in elective politics, you must win a place on the general election ballot by winning a primary. If you fail to tow the extreme line, you may have little or no chance of advancing.  

Primaries attract far fewer voters than general elections. Even the contested House seats in New York State failed to draw many people. These small turnouts allow the dedicated minorities to determine winners. For instance, Public employees and their Unions are directly affected by who employs them and have every reason to turn out. The average voter, not so much.

If you don’t bow towards Trump on the right or bend your message towards Marxists on the left, you’ll likely face a competitor who does. Even if you manage to win the nomination, you’ve expended so much and are so bruised that you’re weakened in the general election.

In my series, The Future Party,” I predicted the homelessness of prospective candidates espousing policies similar to those of Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton. I pointed to primaries as a major culprit.

The two major parties present similar choices. Presently, both parties exhibit socialist leanings. Trump taking government positions in various companies seems to be the case. How is this different than what many Democratic socialists favor? The horseshoe of politics.

How did we end up increasingly ruled by the extremes? Don’t blame the Founding Fathers. Political parties are nowhere in our founding documents, but mirroring the British system, they evolved soon after Washington’s election. While reviled later by progressives as undemocratic, smoke-filled rooms dictated our voting choices; parties exist for only one reason: winning elections.

Similar to profits in private industry, wins are a success. Putting together tickets with a statewide or national appeal by discarding those dragging down the ticket in various areas, aimed at broad electoral success.

Candidates and platforms required compromise, rather than extreme positions, to win. For our first hundred years, party conventions put forth what they determined were winning slates. For the most part, we avoided wild extremes. Of course, the government was much smaller and less intrusive then.

Things changed in the late nineteenth century with the rise of the progressive movement. Posing as a reform movement, it is, in truth, the reactionary response of those desiring a return to the rule of a smaller group of elites, a rule of Experts, in response to the diverse successes of the US and capitalism. The understandable changes and dislocations attendant to a tripling of our economy opened the way for those demanding more government control.

A government by “Experts” means the government makes all the decisions. Why are the government’s experts better than others?

This idea is highly compatible with socialism or communism, but at odds with capitalism, where the market determines what is produced or bought. Inevitably, progressivism leads to socialism or something similar.

Our constitutional system of checks and balances limited their ability to expand the government’s reach. Rather than slow and sure, progressives wanted their changes now. Claiming our system thwarted the will of the people. They sought to “democratize” our elections and, thereby, our government.

The one thing the Founding Fathers weren’t keen on was direct democracy. Popular fads led to charismatic leaders and a tyranny of the majority in past republics. They placed checks and balances to impede rash actions—our constitution protects the minority from a ravenous majority.

Popularly elected for two years, the House of Representatives represented the popular will at the moment. Still, state legislatures originally elected the Senate to serve for six years as the more deliberative body. The parties followed this approach to arrive at balanced tickets, rather than extreme candidates.

By removing the ability of actual party participants to nominate candidates, progressives gave us a primary system in which we determine winners by present whims rather than by balance. Choices most find objectionable are the result.

For this reason, one of the first things I proposed for “The Future Party” is no primaries. As with any other private organization, the party’s nominees are determined by those invested in it. States have no business running primaries on the public dime in any case. Reasonable numbers for ballot spots open the system to more competition, and more choice is the American way. As new parties present winning candidates, existing parties will dump primaries to compete.

While we’re at it, limit the number of election days to one each year and make that day convenient for as many people as possible. More people exercising their right will lead to real Democratic outcomes.

Our 250th Birthday is a great time to get back in touch with what the radical change wrought by our Revolution left behind: the societal organization by class or caste.

A good place to start is reading or re-reading Gordon S. Wood’s “The Radicalism of the American Revolution.” The author points out that we weren’t only revolting against the British Monarchy but also against thousands of years of top-down governance. Obligation only went up. Under our system, obligating the government to the people is an earth-shattering change. Why would we want to go back to a “rule of experts,” meaning our “betters”

Sadly, Prof. Wood died at 92 recently in a parking lot accident. An interesting sidelight: his highly complimentary New York Times obituary referred to Wood’s devastating critical letter about the paper’s controversial “1619 Project.” A sign of the respect Wood attained as a historian.

With our obviously better results, why go back to government interference and patronage, as Woods pointed out, that preceded us and only led to corruption? Our leaders should smooth the way for free markets, and the government should not get in the way. Yet a bigger, more intrusive government is the direction both major parties are moving in.

Let’s get back on track with dumping primaries as the first step.