Ten years ago, the 2000 elections changed the broadly accepted parameters of progressive challenges to incumbent, center-right Democrats. Given that we all had to suffer through the Bush administration even though Gore and Nader voters combined for a majority of the electorate, two de facto rules were laid down:
- Keep progressive challenges to center-right Democrats confined to Democratic primaries, not general elections;
- Keep those primary challenges confined to blue and swing districts, not red districts.
The basic idea behind these two rules has been to find ways to engage in progressive primary challenges that do not endanger Democratic chances to defeat Republicans. Thus, there can be progressive accountability that does not actively help Republicans.
A counter-argument to these rules is that Democrats from red districts are exempted from any accountability, thus making it virtually impossible to build a progressive majority in Congress. With Democrats now the governing party in D.C., this argument appears to be winning the day.
Progressive frustration at at right-wing Democrats who seek to water down, or outright block, even a modest, center-left agenda has entirely ended the self-imposed ban on the second rule (no primary challenges in red districts). There are numerous examples of this:
- Most obviously, Bill Halter’s primary challenge against Blanche Lincoln has been strongly supported by labor and netroots organizations alike. This is even though Arkansas Arkansas has a Cook Partisan Index of Republican +9, making it a very difficult state for any Democrat to win this year.
- In North Carolina, two progressive primary challengers with literally no funding scored nearly 40% of the vote against Democrats Larry Kissell and Heath Shuler. Both Kissell and Shuler have voted against a range of progressive priorities (they are under 50% for key votes on Progressive Punch), and the vote against came came primarily from the more liberal parts of their districts.
- In Utah, Jim Matheson was forced into a primary against Claudia Wright by progressive activists at the state caucus convention. This is even though the district has a Cook PVI of Republican +15.
- In the Pennsylvania 17th, a district with a Cook PVI of Republican +5, the AFL-CIO withheld support from incumbent Blue Doog Tim Holden in the Democrats in his primary against progressive challenger Shelia Dow Ford. In the end, the underfunded Ford did not do as well as the primary challengers in North Carolina (likely because she faced a 19-year incumbent rather than a freshman or a sophomore), but still scored a respectable 35%.
- There are also the examples of the Pennsylvania Senate (Joe Sestak), and Georgia 12 congressional district (Regina Thomas) primaries, both of which are pretty purple and not be easy to win in a year such as 2010.
There is actually more in the way of primary challenges to incumbent Democrats in red districts than in blue districts this year. In many cases, these primary challenges have the official, or at least implied, support of netroots organizations and unions. This is a stark change from 2006 and 2008, when on many occasions I personally saw suggestions of primary challenges against Democrats in red districts dismissed outright, with no discussion, by leaders of these groups.
It is also a welcome change. If progressives are afraid of running progressive candidates in competitive or red districts, then we might as well just give up our whole movement right now. To do so would be to simply cede the possibility of a progressive governing majority in D.C. at the start of the process, to to mention basically enable Blue Dogs who water down and block a center-left agenda.
I am far less convinced of dumping rule #1, not challenging center-right Democrats in general elections. However, at least one major organization is starting to go down that path, too:
The Service Employees International Union and its North Carolina affiliate did not gather the 85,000 signatures by Tuesday’s deadline, meaning the third party, North Carolina First, will not be recognized on the general election ballot. But organizers said they are drafting an independent candidate to challenge Rep. Larry Kissell, a first-term Democrat from a swing district who voted no on health care.(…)
“We’re trying to give the voters in the district a choice that isn’t just the same old thing,” Rideout said. “The same old thing is a Democrat who goes to Washington and votes with the health insurance companies and a Republican who goes to Washington and votes with the health insurance companies.”(…)
This is an unusual move that Democratic officials warn could take away votes from Kissell and effectively hand the seat to a Republican.
Well duh, on that last point. You would have to be pretty dense to not see that defeating Kissell, and having it serve as a warning to other Democrats in red and purple districts, was SEIU’s entire goal here. They want Democrats in red districts to fear them.
While in general I do not agree with this accountability tactic, it is at least playing with a lot less fire than a left-wing third-party challenge in a presidential election. Perhaps an experiment in one or two congressional districts is at least worth a try, to see if it does change Democratic behavior in any way.
From my vantage point, as a two-time Nader vote in 1996 and 2000, it seemed like this tactic woefully backfired for Nader and his supporters after 2000. Instead of Democrats being forced to bow and respect of the Greens, Democrats ended up loathing them and fighting back harder. Nader lost over 80% of his support from 2000 to 2004, and lost his place as a credible national figure on a wide variety of issues. Maybe it will turn out differently this time, but ten years ago this method truly stank as an effective accountability tactic for progressives.
|
