And wouldn't y'know it - a few people actually showed up for this dog-and-pony gig, including some current office-holders seeking re-election in 2010. Chris and I were both less-than polished, but I think we managed to communicate some helpful information and suggestions.
During my stand-up, it was necessary for me to differentiate between our role in the primary process vs. that in the November election. To wit: the Party itself does not endorse, or work on behalf of , any candidates in the primary, though individuals may; the Party does not 'decide' who can or will run for a particular office, and it is not our place to prevent or actively discourage people from running - even against Democratic incumbents. Once the primary is over and we have a Democratic ticket, our duty is to do what we can to support our whole slate of candidates in the general election. I also briefly outlined the concept of a Coordinated Campaign (thank you Shelly @ TDP!) for the general election and how it could benefit candidates who might choose to participate. More on that later...
County Chair Barbara Nichols also made it known that there were GOP incumbents in our county and districts who did not yet have Democratic challengers, and encouraged others to run for office if they believe they have what it takes. We directed them to online TDP resources and made it clear that our door is open and we are willing to assist any serious candidate in getting started with paperwork, info, and generally navigating the process. As we should, of course.
Pretty dry academic stuff, all in all, but of course SOMEONE had to get their Fruit of the Looms all wadded up over this. Right? Right...
Apparently, one incumbent officeholder (who shall remain nameless for the time being) decided that encouraging qualified and interested people to run for office was tantamount to treason, or meant we were out to purge our own incumbents, or install a socialist regime (what else?), or....something. I'm still not quite sure what this person thought we were saying. At any rate, angry threats were issued to me, our county chair, and others, and strident calls to TDP offices were also logged, all with nonsensical claims that BCDP is somehow breaking party rules or going rogue or are out to get somebody, or....something. So there it was just a week after Labor Day and already we had an episode of manufactured outrage. Ah well, contact sport and what not...Play ball!
Now, certainly the issue of how the Party relates to it's own incumbents during primary season is worthy of debate and discussion, though. One thoughtful attendee questioned whether it was wise of us to "encourage" people to run even against incumbents, rather than "protect" them, reasoning that primary challenges drain resources that a Dem incumbent will need for the general. That's a fair question and tells me that the woman who asked was thinking strategically, which I always like to see.
But I think this strategy is rather one-dimensional and I can think of several other considerations that come into play and must be accounted for in our zeal to win.
- For one, this is a representative democracy, for good or ill, and our modus operandi should reflect democratic principles.Voters (rather than party insiders) should be the ones who ultimately decide who their nominees will be and what direction their party will go.
- For another, how much a primary "drains" an incumbent depends entirely on the race, the incumbent themselves, the reasons for the challenge and it's viability. Some primary challenges are vanity cases or are extremist or from out in left field, and don't require the incumbent to do much of anything. Some are forthright and credible, and may come after an incumbent has neglected their office and/or constituency and bred distrust. Some are of the single-issue (or limited-issue) variety, looking only to give voice to a minority or get some of those issues on the table. Nearly all primary challenges to established incumbents are hopelessly underfunded.
- How an incumbent handles a primary challenge can tell you a lot about them. The best of them will see it as an opportunity to re-connect with their base and remind them of why they elected him/her in the first place. Elected officials who have done their job, can stand on their record with some integrity and have nothing to hide will usually approach it this way. If this type of incumbent is facing a serious challenge, their positive approach can go a long way towards mending whatever rifts may have precipitated the challenge and bringing their coalition back together united behind them for the general fight.
Others may choose to see a challenge from their own party as an affront; a slap in the face, as though once elected they have a God-given right to their power for as long as they choose to stay. These incumbents will scoff at their challenger or ignore them altogether, and spend more time bemoaning "extremists" or "turncoats", etc, in their party, creating bad blood and running off potential help for the general election. Activists tend to not be inclined to help candidates who throw them under the bus and insult them. This is the type of incumbent who is most vulnerable in a general election fight with the other party.
-Discouraging or steering candidates away from challenging for office can ultimately make a political party too insular, top-heavy and out of touch, as it sends the message that new blood and new ideas are not welcome. A party that tries to insulate itself from renewal and re-evaluation is a party tying the noose around it's own neck, because sooner or later the unheard faithful will come busting in the door and all hell will break loose. Witness the current train wreck that is the GOP.
- Turf protection is a major reason why Texas Democrats have such a thin bench of qualified and viable candidates to challenge for statewide office, or even for smaller districts that are becoming more winnable. We need to be building a talent base for the future. The way to do that is to good people run in primaries and not freak out about it. Rather, we should applaud and welcome their initiative - running for office is an exhausting 24/7 job and doesn't pay a thing. Experience is the best teacher, and many of the candidates who won races in Bastrop County in 2008 - like Kleinschmidt, Pina, Pickering, Duggan - had all run and lost races before. We should encourage both incumbent and challenger to shake hands, make their case to the voters, and may the best one win.
I know - "ha ha fatchance, Rob" - but it is possible. Last year, Chris Duggan and Ernie Bogart ran perhaps the most civilized primary race I've ever seen. They were good friends, cordial, positive, and behaved like perfect gentlemen through the campaign, never going negative against each other, and both worked hard applying for the 423rd District bench. Chris won by a strong margin, and Ernie enthusiastically put his full support behind Chris in the fall, where Chris also won going away.
And last but not least: 2008 demonstrated (quite convincingly) that a primary with something genuinely at stake can be a tremendous party-builder. Even one as contentious as Hillary-Obama brought people together for common cause. It forced us to show ourselves for the first time in many years, and to have conversations about where we were going as a country and as a party. Once we all met each other, and realized that we generally all wanted many of the same things, the barriers built by campaign rhetoric came down. We talked, debated, networked, and realized that we weren't islands in a sea of right-wing sharks, and that our differences paled in comparison to the gulf between us and regressive conservatism. Adding 2 million voting Democrats to the turnout in Texas didn't hurt us either. That's a pretty strong foundation, and we have a primary battle to thank for it.
Unlike, say, the DCCC, I don't believe it should be our job to protect or shield incumbent Dems from primary challenges. That should be the incumbent's job. The Party's role is to facilitate the primary process and create ample opportunities for candidates to be sized up by those voters. It is customary - and not the least bit improper - for the Party to recruit good candidates for open seats or to challenge Republican incumbents, as the case may be. And it bears repeating that public officials retire or move on to other offices regularly, and we we'll need capable people ready to step up and fill their shoes.
So let's just play nice, OK kids? :)
No comments:
Post a Comment