Primary Colors

I enjoyed this "conversation" in today's NY Times between David Brooks, the conservative all liberals can agree on, and Gail Collins, a columnist for the paper. Here's an excerpt, in which Brooks kicks off the dialogue:

Gail,

I watched “Recount” on HBO the other night and learned a bunch. For example, did you know that Republicans are evil yet efficient, while Democrats are noble but slightly too good for this world? I also learned that Republicans stole the 2000 election from the Democrats even though the media recounts afterwards showed that Bush did indeed win Florida. It’s amazing what you can learn watching HBO.

I mention all this because we’re supposed to be discussing the merits and demerits of the Republican and Democratic primary rules. I think the Republican rules are much better, albeit in an evil and ruthlessly efficient sort of way.

The Republicans like winners and disincentivize losing. Hence the profusion of winner take all primaries. They got a nominee efficiently and cleanly. Wham, bam, thank you Fred.

Each candidate got a chance to be front-runner — Rudy, Fred, Mitt and John — and since the first three weren’t able to sustain the magic, John got to be nominee in short order.

The Democrats, being better people, wanted to make sure everybody gets a prize each primary. After all, it’s unfair for there to be just one nominee. We’re all nominees in our own way.

The Democratic race now threatens to stretch on until 2012. Even the winner can’t really win. If I were working for Obama I’d look at those gigantic losses in West Virginia and Kentucky and I’d sweat bullets. He’s been robbed of all momentum by the silly rules. The holes in his support have been ruthlessly exposed.

It all goes to confirm the old saying that all historical rivalries pit one side that is right but repulsive against another side that is wrong but romantic.