By Fester:
I support the 50 state strategy, I support the call for Democrats to run 435 House candidates, I support expanding the map. I support all of these strategies for three reasons. The first is purely for partisan and ideological advantage as I think aggressively challenging failure will lead to more of my polic preferneces being implemented. My preferences will be implemented either by the election of candidates who support things closer to my preferences, or at least the creation of electoral incentives to avoid whacking my preferences. This does not always happen, but it is an attempt to create a structural shift in the political debate that tilts in my direction. The second reason is also partisan and more long-term --- challenging everywhere and everyone builds long term infrastructure of knowledgable and credible candidates, volunteers and social networks.
The third reason is that aggressive challenges should keep incumbents slightly less douchebaggish. Democrats have picked up unlikely seats in the past two cycles due to having credible candidates available to take advantage of mistress choking incidents, teen-page texting scandals, generic and geriatric corruption as well as plain ass-hole behavior by Republican incumbents or retention candidates. The Republicans picked up a House seat in Louisiana due to their ability to pose as a viable alternative to an "allegedly" corrupt scum bag. These incentives are not as strong as they could be, but they are real.
So when I saw Chris Cizilla report the following qupte from the NRCC Chairman, I am hopeful that anti-douchebag incentives will get slightly stronger for Democrats:
80That's the number of Democratic-held House seats that Republicans will target in 2010, according to National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (R).
I would love to see every incumbent from either party challenged every cycle. In some districts the challenger will be a liberal trying to push a moderate Democrat to the left in a D+18 seat, in others, it will be Liberterians pushing a Republican in an R+17 seat, and in the rare cases, a competetive seat where the incumbent has to defend their record. I would love to see an 870 seat strategy enacted.
Careful what you wish for. Sometimes the incumbent is the least of other worse alternatives. In the end the ignorance of the electorate is the greatest threat to progress. When I went to the doctor this morning the TV in the waiting room was set on the Fox channel. It remained there even as the president was being broadcast live on CNN at a town hall event pushing health care reform, pecking away at ignorance and disinformation one piece at a time.
ReplyDeleteYou see, in this part of Georgia the only way to challenge an incumbent is to seem even more conservative than he. That includes plenty of dog-whistles letting people know you don't like immigrants, non-Christians or anyone who is pro-choice.
This is the place that elected the late Congressman Larry McDonald, Bob Barr and Newt Gingrich. A few miles into town they elect high-profile black representatives, but just to the North and pretty much over the rest of the state the electorate is very, very Red. This has been the case for all of living history and whatever passes for change is hard to measure.
At the state level one of the most illustrative examples is from the gubernatorial election of 1966. A conservative Republican, Bo Callaway, ran against Democrat Lester Maddox, the famous segregationist. A write-in campaign by Ellis Arnall, a popular, well-liked former governor resulted in none of the three capturing a majority. Instead of a run-off, the state constitution required that under those circumstances the state Legislature would pick the winner. And with that body being overwhelmingly Democrat, Maddox was made governor. I recall a friend at the time saying "The choice was between a sophisticated bigot and an unsophisticated bigot, so Arnall was the only other choice."
I could tell story after story like that, having watched the ignorance of this electorate all my adult life. And occasionally people who stay in office do change for the better. I think a lot of elected representatives get de-provincialized when they get sent to Washington. In fact, I think more ignorant conservatives get changed than those from the Left, even though they dare not let on to others in their peer group. (A corresponding learning curve for those from the left is the harsh reality that not as many people have the same grasp of issues as they. People from the left tend to be more easily shocked that way.)
Some are philosophically conservative by nature, which I respect. Others are obdurately stupid beyond redemption. (A crowd in which Sara Palin would move comfortably.)
And we must not forget the Robert Byrds who are living examples of leadership. (And this is why pork is not always bad. Had that man not brought home the bacon all these years he would have been replaced long ago by his constituents.)