Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Why the Arkansas Primary Challenge Was Worth It
It's always a dilemma to spend scarce resources taking on sitting members of the party you normally support. But Obama's most progressive Cabinet member, Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, herself captured a Congressional seat when labor and environmental activists helped her unseat conservative Democrat Matthew Martinez in exactly the same kind of underdog primary challenge. Solis was criticized with exactly the same arguments, as was progressive Maryland Congresswoman Donna Edwards, before she defeated incumbent Al Wynn. Following a year when the best of Obama's agenda was delayed, defeated, or watered down as much by corporate-beholden Democrats like Lincoln, Ben Nelson, and Kent Conrad as by Republican party of no, those who of us want this or future administrations to fulfill its promise have to find ways to pressure resistant incumbents. And primary challenges have to be part of the mix.
We can and should pressure our elected officials through non-electoral means: letter writing, petitions, and town hall meetings, running ads in their districts, vigils and protests in front of their offices, and organizing their constituents to speak out. If enough people participate, these approaches can not only pressure recalcitrant representatives, but also shift the horizon of what's deemed politically possible. But some entrenched incumbents, and I'd put Lincoln in this category, are so unresponsive, so compromised by wealthy interests, that we need to confront them electorally. Even the threat of a primary challenge can move incumbents to vote more wisely--as was true when Arlen Specter began shifting his votes after Joe Sestak first filed against him. When MoveOn, Democracy for America and several other groups raised several million dollars in pledges to support primary challenges to any Democrat who filibustered health care, their targets stopped talking so loudly about taking this possible stand. Primary challenges can matter even before the elections are held.
They also give us an alternative to other problematic options:
We can accept the tenure of these regressive representatives as inevitable, but that allows them to block necessary change at will.
We can run third party challenges, but that will likely elect more right wing Republicans. It's not just Ralph Nader helping George Bush defeat Al Gore. Republican majority leader Mitch McConnell himself first defeated a moderate incumbent Democrat by less than the margin of a Socialist Workers Party candidate. On the Democratic side, Washington state Senator Maria Cantwell defeated an awful Republican incumbent only because a Libertarian candidate split the conservative vote. Absent instant runoff or fusion voting, third party campaigns risk making matters still worse.
We can also vote with our feet and stay home, but we know where that leads. In the Gingrich sweep of 1994, long-time labor, environmental, and other progressive activists were so angered by NAFTA that they refused to knock on doors, make phone calls, donate to campaigns, or do any of the kinds of things they usually did to get to get Democrats elected. As a result, the Democrats lost race after race by less than the margins of those their lapsed volunteers would normally have gotten to the polls. We don't want to go down that road.
This brings us back to primary challenges. They won't always succeed. Given the resources and commitments involved, we need to be selective in choosing them, and not take on every quixotic campaign. But I don't regret the $50 I gave to Bill Halter (or the money that my union gave) any more than I regret money I've contributed to other causes that have come frustratingly close but lost. Obviously, winning would have sent a powerful message and opened up at least the chance of electing a decent Senator. But Arkansas was a tough state to compete in from the start, with little union presence, Bill Clinton campaigning actively for Lincoln, and Obama allowing her to use his endorsement in ads. Yet even losing this closely means other fickle Democratic representatives and Senators will think far more carefully before they take regressive stands. At least between now and November, Lincoln is also more likely to continue to embrace her newfound populism (real or spurious) on issues like financial reform. The turnout for Halter may also have helped nominate some other more progressive Democrats, as in Chad Causey's defeating a rightwing opponent 51-49 in Arkansas's first congressional district.
Like all political efforts, primary challenges are never guaranteed. And yes, Lincoln's victory is a defeat for a more accountable politics. But recapturing America is a long-term struggle, and we aren't going to always win every round. If the coalitions that came together to try to elect Halter can continue to broaden their reach, perhaps in more hospitable environments, the Halter-Lincoln race will have been worth it.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
51 Comments so far
Show AllMaybe the Halter campaign will have been worth it if Lincoln loses in November because working people are staying home. That would be a lesson well-learned by lawmakers who forget the people that put them in office.
I am tired of trying to convince ordinary people that conservative politics is bad for them. Let them vote for folks that believe in low-tax, no service economies and let them suffer the consequences. Aside from labor unions, I do not see many working people out there pushing for progressive policies. Maybe they need to experience the pain so necessary for growth.
When are the progressives going to understand and appreciate that the electoral process in the USA is rigged?
There is no third party (hopefully you know that getting on the ballot in many states is near impossible for third party candidates), the voting machines are electronic so one cannot be certain that an audit will prove cheating, and the mass media is controlled by ruling elite.
The only solution is too hope that the ruling elite will treat the plebes with some degree of fairness, or don't vote as a protest to the rigged system.
I choose the later, because if enough people don't vote the system will loose credibility then change will come.
I'm tired of hearing these hackneyed arguments. Democrats have historically done little else than use then betray progressives. Better to let the whole rotten two-party dictatorship rot and collapse than to fall for these lesser-of-two-evils scare tactics again.
Just more of the same BS. I didn't leave the Dem. party is the way I see it, the party simply abandoned me and anyone like me long ago. No more voting for the lessor of two evils either way the outcome is evil.
I dont get it. Blance Lincoln is a conservative Democrat. Clinton and Obama are centrists. What favors did Lincoln do for Clinton or Obama? I can't believe they helping Lincoln.
Halter should have won but if a Republican wins against Lincoln, it get worse. Don't like Lincoln but wouldn't want a Repug in her place.
Shawn Berry sez: "I dont get it. Blance Lincoln is a conservative Democrat. Clinton and Obama are centrists. What favors did Lincoln do for Clinton or Obama?"
***
Perhaps you don't "get it" because you hold to inaccurate descriptions of the subjects in question ("conservative Democrat", "centrist", etc.)
They are ALL corporatists and, as such, are pulling oars for the same destination. Halter MIGHT have rocked the boat (though I don't see precisely a flaming socialist there, either), and that is a threat which must be quashed by all means.
It is why Rahm exists. It is why he sits at the right hand of the Borg.
Oh brother, another party apologist statement. We know you Shawn. You admitted to working for the Democratic Party and you never give up saying that you are "disappointed" with Obama. At least get one thing straight. Obama is not even a centrist unlike Clinton. Clinton could kick his base one face at a time but the "great multitasker Obama" is doing a heckuva job punching so many faces of his base at the same time. Blue collared workers are not the base of either the Republican or Democratic parties. Do you really believe that Lincoln or Obama will change even with this challenge? Wake up !
Living on Social Security and a small pension and trying to find a part time job in a tight economy to offset the threats of cuts to Social Security and Medicare, you can probably understand why I would never contribute monitarily to any politicians' charade of trying to convince the populace that they will represent them!
They certainly don't represent me and most likely couldn't give a damn about my financial situation. At this point in time, I clearly realize that the reason the majority of politicians seek public office is self-aggrandizement and financial enrichment through our "legalized bribery system" also known as "lobbying."
Let's face it, my friends, we have a THOROUGHLY BROKEN AND REPROBATE system of government, not unlike other systems of government throughout the world. I hold out little hope that it will ever reverse itself and become again a government "BY, OF, AND FOR THE PEOPLE!"
I very much support what the netroots and labor unions tried to do and think know that they did the right thing. Win or lose we have to send a message to all politicians, whether Democrats or Republicans, that they must stand up for working families and everyday people if they want our support.
We also need to build a progressive infrastructure in every state around a broad vision and progressive narrative. Look at what TakeAction Minnesota is doing for an example of a successful model.
This morning MSNBC reported how bad last months " retail numbers " were and then said the consensus among small business owners were more tax cuts for business. What a steaming pile of happy horsesxxt! The U.S. has the lowest taxes since the 50's and lowest in the industrialized world. The lies about basic economic models of stimulating an economy are perpetuated at every level by the MSM. Ohbummer/Clinton have aligned themselves with these lies and thus destroy hopes for the middle class at every turn. It is this b.s. for the last 30 yrs that has destroyed our chances for economic recovery. The primary challenge in Arkansas, from my perspective, would have been better directed to N. Carolina, Colorado and Texas primaries, but I'm not asking for my contribution back. I think that emotions got the better of Progressive groups and we need to do a better job of studying demographics and emerging voting trends to bring change. The right has different problems but the path ahead requires we keep challenging the status quo and phony Dems at every turn. If that means an insurgent campaign in 2012 then so be it.
-"We can run third party challenges, but that will likely elect more right wing Republicans. It's not just Ralph Nader helping George Bush defeat Al Gore."
The Democrats never get tired of trotting out Nader "helping" Bush do they? Yeah, I'm sure Leiberman as VP would have been much better for the people than Cheney was, and Gore? His progressive credentials are almost as good as Obama's, aren't they?
So Democrats are scared of you giving wins to Republicans, are they? What would the big bad Palin do? destroy respect for habeus corpus, the rule of law, the constitution? Would the Republicans line up against the world, and defend Israels "right" to murder on the high seas? Would they send soldiers to conquer countries in Asia and the Middle East? Would the Republicans make explicit threats that it is US policy to use nuclear weapons in a first-strike against non-nuclear countries? Would they give billions of tax dollars to the "bailed out" companies of millionaire friends? Would they not rebuild after Katrina? Would they allow dangerous oil drilling? Would they break their campaign promises?
It is this simple, Americans can vote for people, parties, that want what you want and get some progress towards responsable government, or the US can keep on like most of you have been doing, trying to outbid BP and Halliburton for control of the Democratic party. These "progressive Dems" as well meaning as they are are, think that emailing Obama or raising money to throw at primaries is somehow a shortcut to building a seperate party. As witnessed in the Blanche Lincoln race, if Obama sees a threat, he's got all the resources that BP and Goldman Sachs gave him to snuff it out. Come election time, the progressive is gone, people's money spent, and it is tweedle-R vs tweedle-D, all over again. Heads, the corporations win, tails, you lose. You've got to change the game.
jlocke...Amen. Well said.
"and Gore? His progressive credentials are almost as good as Obama's, aren't they?"
I feel I should pay you for the wonderful laugh I got from this.
The game is changing. Lincoln will be defeated in the general election. Many incumbents are going to be turned out, republican and democrat.
The democrats are finished, they just haven't chosen their burial place for the next decade or so.
Loeb sez: "It's not just Ralph Nader helping George Bush defeat Al Gore."
***
Good catch, jlocke123 ...
Some still prefer to think of 2000 as "Antonin Scalia helping Dick Cheney defeat Al Gore."
I'd say both are true... If Thurgood Marshall had waited till Clinton was elected to retire (and I intensely dislike Bill Clinton), Bush wouldn't have had the 5-4 majority to hand him the presidency after Nader helped divide the votes and Katherine Harris threw 80,000-100,000 Democratic voters off the rolls.
When will they ever learn?
"Progressives" put their hopes in Obama, only to see him support the Blue Dogs on health care and endorse their reelection. They could have predicted what he would do by examining his record rather than indulging their illusions.
The Arkansas challenge was more of the same. Look at Halter's homepage. It's a study in vagueness. He loudly proclaims his support for Obama's sham of a health care bill; he says he favors "greater choice" in health care without using the words "public option", let alone "single payer"; he nowhere pledges to vote for EFCA. There is language about better support for veterans, but not a hint of opposition to troops in Iraq or Afghanistan.
What reason did anyone have to believe that Bill Halter, unlike Obama and so many others before, was anything but another slithering, equivocating, opportunist Democrat, hoping to ride into office on the groundless but perennial hopes of "progressives"?
How dare the prog Dems accuse Tea Partiers of being oblivious to the facts? Who was it that defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again in the expectation of a different result?
And now for the REAL challenger:
http://www.johngrayforussenate.com.
Yes, the Green Party is running against Lincoln in Arkansas. So instead of the pretend challenge in the primaries, get out and work for a real progressive - in November, when it counts. Or if you're not in Arkansas:
www.gp.org
The democratic party is stopped. Apologists like Loeb cannot repair the damage Pelosi and Obama have done.
"Mr. Loeb felt compelled to include quotes from others praising him for his work in the biography at the end of his piece. What kind of a person does that? Somebody with a pretty huge ego, I'd say."
Noticed that did you, hilarious I'd say!
What's the evidence? I'd say that the progress we've made historically has been through a combination of inside/outside strategies and that successful movements have played both. Would we have had more progress in the thirties if Roosevelt had lost? More on civil rights and areas like medicare if Johnson and Kennedy had lost? I think so.
If Gore had taken the presidency after defeating Bush we'd have a vastly better Supreme Court (and no Citizen's United), we'd have been doing something on areas like energy and climate change, we wouldn't have had massively regressive tax cuts and I doubt we'd have gone into Iraq. Corporations (or "our corporate masters") wouldn't have blanketly written laws, though they'd still have had way too much influence. Would that mattered? I think so.
I'm not suggesting electoral politics or left liberal Democratic politics is the only alternative. Of course we need powerful citizen movements. But some of the commentators on this board are so purist, they regard any engagement with Democrats, even critical engagement, as betrayal.
On citing quotes for my books, it's not really ego, but more a way to steer people to resources that a lot of people have found valuable. But I should probably shorten the bio.
Gore is a unstable hypocrite, it's good he lost
I don't have much more time to comment but am answering at the top of the thread just because I think others would be interested.
We're not purists. We're realists.
As for Roosevelt and the New Deal: The forces challenging Roosevelt--rifle-wielding farmers, striking industrial workers, Huey Long, Upton Sinclair, the Communist and Socialist Parties--were not pursuing an "inside/outside strategy". They were pursuing an outside strategy. Unlike you and other "progressives", they were not trying to nudge Roosevelt to the left while remaining Democrat-loyal.It was precisely because they were acting independently of both parties and threatening the Democrats,the two-party system, and capitalism as a whole that Roosevelt felt compelled to move to the left 1n 1935. You'll never pressure Democrats to the left while at the same time pledging to vote for them no matter what. Where's the pressure in this case?
Not purism, just realism.
Sorry, I can't buy into the idea that failed primary challenges substantially influence "the debate", and function like the proverbial pebbles or drops of water that are precursors to avalanches and waterfalls. Or slipstreams that can eventually change the course of the entire riverbed.
I may be blinded by my biases: I have a deep-seated aversion to the grand political strategies and horse-race handicapping of the "inside-politics" perspective, aka Conventional Wisdom. Perhaps it amounts to willful obtuseness.
I also instinctively resist and cordially despise the dogmatic optimism that makes "half-full" silk purses out of sow's ears, if you'll pardon the mixed metaphor.
One reason I can't be sanguine about the efficacy of incremental change on a geological time-scale is that IMO, quintessentially conventional-wisdom partisan politics are a self-sealing intellectual/epistemological trap.
Much is made of the prospect that the failed challenge "got their attention"-- "they" including the politicians, their handlers and party officials, and the general public. The claim is that the defeat highlights hitherto-ignored, suppressed, or rejected issues and constituencies, and that this new attention empowers the out-groups and out-ideas.
And sure, in the post-primary short term it behooves the victor to graciously reach out to the loser(s) as part of the "unity" phase-- on the presidential level, for instance, they patronized the losers straight into the Veal Pen.
But I don't see that these superficial adjustments translate into a cumulative, enduring political "undertow" current.
Here's my primitive stick-figure scenario, predicated on the premise that victory vindicates:
If Lincoln wins the November election, the CW will reduce the primary challenge to a forgettable fluke-- a marginal challenge from the disaffected "left" with Halter dismissed as a Ned Lamont wannabe.
I don't see how progressives/liberals/leftists get traction or momentum from this outcome. As with the "Veal Pen", it's far more typical for the dominant, monolithic, powerful party organization to absorb and assimilate "maverick" constituencies for the purposes of exploiting and controlling them.
If Lincoln loses the election, the CW will probably blame anti-incumbent blowback. But apart from that, would a Lincoln loss give the losing candidate or the party incentive to warm up to the above awkwardly-cited "leftish" constituencies?
I know I'm all over the metaphorical map here, but we anti-wonks can only discuss wonky matters indirectly. So to put it another way-- if a campaign runs out of gas and doesn't cross the finish line first, will candidates and party officials REALLY draw the deep conclusion that more attention needs to be given to tapping "alternative energy sources"?
They might, but only if the pols and party pooh-bahs alike are wise, thoughtful, flexible planners resolved to transcend the deeply-entrenched status quo of corporate symbiosis, and willing to take risks and incur short-term setbacks to return the political process to a more wholesome footing-- true reformers and rebuilders, that is.
But remember: victory vindicates. So if a Republican wins, regardless of the anti-incumbency factor, the machiavellian lemmings in charge of the Democratic Party will seek to fine-tune the next campaign by ensuring that the candidate is more Republican-voter-friendly. The CW will cheerfully throw away the bathwater and "outsider" soap with the losing baby.
I don't see how the Democrats become less Republican, or that the primary challenges will inevitably persuade the Democrats to respect, not to say woo, progressive candidates and constituencies.
To change you have to want to. In 2008 McCain prevailed over Obama in Arkansas by 20%, correct? Then why were the leaders of the so-called Progressives trying to revive a dead, conservative state to their side? I don't get the thinking, and it was of a group, to go after a state which appears to be lost. What were they thinking? Who's egos on the blogosphere, and the attendant advertising bucks, are we being really herded to? I see Daily Kos replaced their polling firm after this b.s. in Arkansas. Politics and economic arguments should not be wasted on southern, rural and evangelical states that don't want to change. That's my takeaway from this mess.
It's a real question, except that Halter did poll better against the Republicans than Lincoln. Absent I don't think the risk would have been worth taking.
And yes, there are egos in the left blogosphere and turf wars and all the rest of the nasty stuff we'd like to only ascribe to the other side.
This comment may be "all over the map," but it still raises good hard questions. I'm not one for purely moral victories myself. I'd have hugely better if Halter had defeated Lincoln, though November would still be uphill, and he's far from Bernie Sanders. I'd argue that the way to have an impact is to follow the path that the unions have done since Tuesday--to pressure the Democrats to earn our support, and to be open to knocking off the most regressive representatives as a warning.
It's a muddy world out there, and it would be great if we did enough outreach, built enough ongoing relationships with enough voters so they'd support genuinely progressive candidates. In a few places that happens. In more we're left with mixed choices. And navigating mixed choices is what I'm writing about.
Thanks for the thoughtful response, Paul-- food for thought. ;)
Really appreciate the name-calling.
Of course movements get built "outside of just running candidates." The question is what we do in that sphere besides just hand it over to the Republicans.
To respond is to engage,even the rocks!My question is how did the politicians get away with going from 42 polling places down to 2.I find that smacking of a conspiracy and illegal.Tony
Is there not sufficient evidence to show that the Republican Party and Democratic Party have colluded to create a system that keeps themselves permanently in power, and locks out all others. The difference between the Republicans and Democrats is merely nuanced and not real.
The final nail in democracy's coffin was the recent coup by the Supreme Court making corporations into persons. Since money is now speech, the corporations can drown out all other voices in future elections.
We are living in a Plutocracy and governed by people who have about as much empathy or moral responsibility as cows in a field.
I have lots of complaints with the Democrats--why I support challenges to people like Lincoln.
But there's more than an irony in citing the genuinely terrifying Supreme Court ruling and then saying there's no difference between parties. Without rightwing Republican presidents we'd have different justices on the court, ones who (like those in the minority) allowed campaign reform to stand. Do we really need more like Alito and Roberts?
For California, New York or Minnesota meh...
For Arkansas a contrast to Lincoln's threat to filibuster health care reform (which moved it to the right and help kill a public option), to oppose the Employee Free Choice Act (which gives a shot at union organizing in the South, better on using federal resources to combat unemployment, and actually did funnel money toward access to education. And until Lincoln's last minute conversion better on financial reform.
My dream candidate? No way. But my dream candidate won't come close in Arkansas. The effort worked or not as part of a larger project to pressure the most rightwing Democrats to stop blocking their more progressive peers--who themselves have to be moved in a more progressive direction. That's it's purpose.
halter's a good guy. if what this article says is true, he ought to challenge the election results. even katherine harris would not have thought to cut 42 primary voting places down to 2 in the runoff. if you look at the results, you'll probably find evidence of sabotage. i say this because halter was well ahead in the polls, but ended up losing by 5 or 6 points. let's discuss what happend here.
This is why I gave up on Loeb a long time ago. He is still stuck in the past, blaming 3rd parties for 'spoiling' election results - despite OVERWHELMING evidence that voting fraud is now SOP. Well, I'm sorry, but if I have to vote (and even as a conservative, I'm questioning that waste of time) - I'm not going to vote for EITHER the next Stalin or the next Hitler. I want my conscience clear when this whole mess erupts into the inevitable catastrophe that is already unfolding in this country. Voting for fascists - from either party - is a vote FOR tyranny - a vote for fascism - a vote for the end of life as we know it. May the gods help our children - and maybe someday forgive us for what we've done.
I am sorry Paul but I cannot tolerate a Democratic Party that cannot and will not do even the simplest of tasks for the ordinary working Americans. You try to sound like you are speaking from both the heart and mind but your mind is in denial mode and that is understandable. Surely, you cannot have confidence in the Democratic Party no matter how you try to evade that sad feeling. Paul, it is ok to be disgusted with the Democratic Party from the bottom of one's own heart. Please listen to your heart some more and try to understand why the Democratic Party is deceiving you. I am ready to vote Green for the first time in my life. Judge not a pol by its labels but by its actions.
It's strange reading these comments. If I look at my piece, I'm critical of Obama, Clinton and corporate Democrats. I stress the importance of grassroots organizing and popular protest.
But that's not enough. Somehow to be regarded as anything other than "an idiot," "a sell-out," or just hopelessly deluded, I have to conclude that doing anything within the two party framework, including pressuring candidates from the left, is an exercise in futility.
I honestly wonder whether any of the most vitriolic critics have ever been a significant part of organizing anything that brought about significant change, or whether they're simply waiting for the apocalypse with the assumption that somehow the people will see the light and rise up if things get bad enough. And so they damn all of us who think incremental progress can play a useful role. I am genuinely confused because I've always valued the Common Dreams community, still value the articles that get posted, but sometimes (not just on my own piece) am stunned by the purism of the commentators.
How short memories can be.
Eight racists show up with misspelled signs and the media calls it a populist movement. A quarter million marched on the capital protesting war and the media didn't even mention it. Popular protest is ignored. Futile is accurate.
A 58 (can't count Lieberman) to 42 majority in the senate wasn't enough for the democrats to pass legislation, despite having a majority in the house of reps and the presidency.
Then after increasing the seat count we are given; mandatory purchase of a defective product, a defense budget that continues to increase, larger banker charity, expanded theater of wars, civil rights and liberties slashed, so that all humans on the planet are declared a potential target for murder.
Incremental change? Get real.
paul; tell halter to file an election challenge. blanche lincoln is far from an honest person and is not to be trusted with all the hands she had on the election machinery. at the least you should do a sample count, or some minimal investigation here. will be happy to help finance such a deal. call me toll free at 1-866-266-1172 and leave me a message.
I'm posting this at the top just because I think it's generally applicable. A lot of this does come down to one's reading of history.
But even some of the examples he cites (and others presumably echo) are complicated. I agree that Taft Hartley was probably the single most destructive bill (at least before NAFTA) in terms of economic justice since World War II. But it was a Republican and Dixiecrat bill, passed over Truman's veto. The Democrats split, but not a single Democrat north of then-segregated Maryland voted for it. So at least during that time, the Democrats were a clearly more progressive force. On domestic issues, Johnson and Kennedy passed key legislation that continues to matter over primarily Republican opposition.
So that gets us to the last thirty years. I agree with Visiting Professor that this has been primarily a period of worsening inequality on economic issues and greater corporate power. And that the Clinton administration contributed hugely to this with NAFTA, as did those Democrats who backed removing the barriers to trade with China. On the other hand, the immensely important Citizen's United Court decision that all of us loathe really is the fruit of Republican nominees. None of the Democratic appointed justices supported it.
Most of us on the board agree that independent political organizing and action is critical. We've probably marched in similar demonstrations on the same side of most of these issues. If I look at the last year, there's been way too little of this kind of grassroots involvement and I think we'd agree we need more, far more.
The question is how we view the electoral field. I don't see the evidence of how the total withdrawal from electoral politics that some here have advocated or the third party approaches that more here have advocated have actually produced productive results that have been worth their costs.
I probably won't have more time to dialogue on this, but I do appreciate the time people have taken.