Should a Political Party be a Candidate Gatekeeper?

“The tragic paradox of the electoral route to authoritarianism is that democracy’s assassins use the very institutions of democracy—gradually, subtly, and even legally—to kill it. . . . . One of the great ironies of how democracies die is that the very defense of democracy is often used as a pretext for its subversion.” -- Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt commenting on the gatekeeper function of political parties to prevent the rise of demagogues, How Democracies Die, 2018


Demagogue: a political leader who seeks support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument

Some people are unhappy with their perception of the role the democratic party played in keeping Bernie Sanders from winning the 2016 nomination and in his withdrawal from the 2018 race. Criticism of the DNC and party insiders are accused of blocking Sanders. 

That raises the question of whether a party should play a gatekeeping role in selecting candidates for office. In their 2018 book, How Democracies Die, political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt commented on the gatekeeper function of political parties. Levitsky and Ziblatt are experts on how democracies fall to authoritarians. One political party function they pointed to was the failure of a political party to prevent the rise of demagogues. They considered a gatekeeping function of a party to be an important bulwark against the rise of authoritarian demagogues. Their rationale is that party insiders and elites usually have far more knowledge about a candidate and their character and competence than most average voters.

In 2016, the GOP did not have a gatekeeping function in place. A divisive demagogue wound up as the party's nominee and ultimately president. Other divisive demagogues who were not subject to party gatekeeping included Hitler and Mussolini. In both of those cases, the existing party structure was losing trust, vitality and public support. In those situations, party elites allowed the demagogues to gain power. They falsely believed that they could control the beasts they unleashed and use them to regain public support. The beasts ended up destroying the parties.

In both 2016 and 2020, most of the democratic party elites apparently were opposed to Sanders in his  run for the nomination. Increasing numbers of voters who register as independents appears to reflect a loss of trust, vitality and public support in the two main American parties. Nonetheless, the democratic party played a gatekeeping role in 2016 and arguably also in 2020. 

Some years ago, the San Diego democratic party failed to exercise a gatekeeping function and a sexual predator, Bob Filner, wound up as city mayor. Some time after taking office, Filner was publicly accused of sexual predation. In 2013 he wound up resigning in disgrace. The democratic party was so intent on winning the mayor's office that they ignored Filner's long history of sexual predation despite being fully aware of it. That failure of gatekeeping cost the party the mayor position and at least some public trust for some time.

Should a party play a gatekeeping role or not? Does it matter that a candidate like Sanders, a long time independent, was not a long time party member? Is it reasonable to believe that (i) party insiders generally know more about their candidates than the public, or (ii) can exert better judgment than average voters based on their knowledge and experience?