When Did We Abolish Primary Challenges to Democratic Incumbents?
Poor Carolyn Maloney. She thinks she has the right to challenge New York's appointed senator, Kristin Gillibrand, in a primary because she dislikes Gillibrand's record and thinks she, Maloney, would be a better senator.
Well, as the Beatles song goes, she "didn't notice that the lights had changed." And the light is bright red when it comes to challenging Congressional incumbents in primaries unless the incumbent is caught up in a major scandal or egregiously disses the party (i.e., Joe Lieberman). Democrats no longer believe in challenging incumbents over issues.
It wasn't that way when I was a kid. In New York, the best House Members in the delegation had knocked off fellow liberal Democrats in primaries. Jonathan Bingham, Liz Holtzman, Steve Solarz, Jim Scheuer and Bella Abzug all knocked off long time Democratic incumbents (mostly over the issue of the Vietnam war). Holtzman defeated the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. On the Republican side Alfonse D'Amato beat Senator Jacob Javits (that one was no improvement, obviously).
Those days are over. Today, once you are in, you have the nomination for life which is one reason liberals backed Bush on the Iraq war. They didn't have to worry about primaries. Nor do the senators who rolled over and blocked the laws and regulations that might have prevented the current banking/financial disaster.
Incumbents are safe. They are even mostly safe from the other party (the re-election rate is astronomical).
That is why I don't think Maloney will run in the end. Primaries are just not allowed anymore except in the case of open seats.
Democracy? I don't think so.
Nor do I I think this will change which is why I have always favored term limits. Chuck Schumer is a delightful fellow but does New York really need 30 or 40 years of him? Is it not possible that there is someone better out there. But, sorry, junior or (more likely) sister, you can't run til Chuck is very old. Too bad you probably will be too.
This is not about Gillibrand. It is about a system that is totally undemocratic. It won't change.
This is why it was so important that Carolyn Kennedy didn't get a lifetime appointment. But the real fault is with the party and, ironically with Chuck Schumer, who as head the DSCC could make all of this right by saying the national party will give equal support to all legit primary candidates, given that this was an appointed and not elected seat.
July 7, 2009 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
--Pete Townshend
July 7, 2009 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
As American politics becomes more detached from its constituency, and more invested with and dependent upon monied interests, there'll be less democracy and more traditional machine-style structure. Tammany Hall is back.
July 7, 2009 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
RE: "It is about a system that is totally undemocratic. It won't change."
MY COMMENT: It is outrageous! Something MUST be done about the way campaigns (and the political parties themselves) are financed.
July 7, 2009 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
FROM "THINK PROGRESS"(07/07/09): ...ExxonMobil, the world’s largest company, is still directing money to climate-denial front groups, and has spent more than $9.3 million lobbying Congress this year alone. Sen. Whitehouse has previously noted the insidious influence of polluter spending on the Senate’s willingness to take the threat of climate change seriously...
SOURCE - http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/07/whitehouse-climate-deniers/
July 7, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
The line from the Outer Limits about "we control you tv set" is still very true and needs to be updated to include the internet. These days when Mr. or Ms. Smith goes to Washington it's all part of a prepaid and prearranged trip so that the definition of an honest politician "One who is bought who stays bought" remains as the dreary reality defining all too many of our "public" servants.
July 7, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The corporate overlords like it that way...just ask Chuck.
July 7, 2009 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Loved the article. I am new to TPM and therefore I am just starting to seek articles. I share your frustration with the Obscene incumbency in congress. I am forming a group, Citizens Opposing Incumbency www.COI-PAC.org and would like to ask you to check us out. Obviously I hope you will join us if you do agree, but I only ask you to see what we are trying to do and ask that you consider helping.
We stand for a 2 and up or 2 and out congress... 2terms and you move to a higher office if the voters choose to allow you in that office or you return to the private life and live with your actions as we do.
Please fell free to leave comments in the site.
Regards~
Jeff Monks
October 9, 2009 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink