Contested Primaries

Primary season is about to start up in Texas. There's plenty to write about regarding the all the wonky changes due to complying with new federal guidelines to mostly aid registered voters overseas, but I'm going to write about something more fundamental. A caveat up front: I can only speak credibly about what I saw in Dallas County, and not the rest of state or country.

Many people looked at the fierce competition for the 2008 Democratic Party Presidential nomination in horror. The seemingly unpredictable (debatable) and overwhelming (debatable, but less so) turnout and the tension between passionate, competitive supporters caused many people - even in red state Texas - to freak out. The impact of that contested primary continues to this day with every occasional "those Obama people" comment in Dallas Dem circles, whose intent varies from curiosity to skepticism.

(It's strange that I rarely hear "those Clinton people", but it could be the company I keep. Please share your experience in hearing "those Clinton people" in conversation.)

Many people saw chaos and discord. I completely agree. We had ample amounts of both in Dallas. Both candidates did a great job in getting new and casual voters excited and participating for once. Democrats had competing, compelling dreams embodied in two credible candidates: the first black U.S. President and the first female U.S. President. Unfortunately, the Texas Democratic Party (TDP) had just come out of a hard reboot in 2005 when enthusiasm and professionalism had hit a new low. Having all these "new" people involved and having expectations when they were just starting to manage the "old" people capably again led to very stressful moments and perhaps not the most thought-out decisions to cope. It was a crazy time, though, and I respect that everyone was trying to act responsibly.

The situation was exacerbated in my area by people in the Dallas County Democratic Party (DCDP) HQ betting early on Clinton, making party operations and the DCDP HQ seemingly a de facto extension of the Clinton campaign. I don't completely fault them for doing this. County Chairs all around the country were forgetting their obligation to take a neutral stance in primaries. Usually, the Democratic Presidential primary is done by the time it hits Texas (Thank you California!), so it became phenomenally exciting and awkward when the Presidential primary didn't get resolved in California in February. It wasn't obviously resolved until the time of the TDP state convention in June. That's an awfully long time to be squabbling over something when people aren't accustomed to it. It's entertaining in retrospect, but as a newlywed, I can attest that that sort of thing can leave a mark.

At this point, I could wade deeper into the weeds of the 2008 general election season. That's not the point of this. I hope you can forgive the warm-up. Years later, I can see that much of the primary-oriented discord in Democratic circles I saw in 2008, again in 2010, and likely will in 2012 comes not from Obama vs. Clinton tensions, though their names get brought up regularly. No, Obama and Clinton are convenient scapegoats for something more fundamental to squabble over.

After many years of having to beg people to run as Democrats in Texas, there lingers a profound unease and distrust of contested primaries in general. I see "Obama" and "Clinton" labels thrown on people in relation to that. I think it's a bit of a cop-out, but I think I get it. Obama was the brash upstart who didn't wait in line, and Hillary Clinton, a smart, capable person in her own right, was the establishment choice who got credit for the standing in line that her husband did. (Many people seem to have forgotten how controversial it was when she ran for U.S. Senate in New York.) The narrative around those two and the still-tender 2008 primary scars make for an easy shorthand.

Okay. That said, we've got these primaries coming up and I can already see the beginnings of particularly discordant battle lines being drawn. These lines aren't so much always on policy disagreements, but centered on words like "loyalty", "not his/her time", "frivolous", and even the hoary chestnut, "real Democrat". (I love that one. Usually, no matter the skin color, a Texas Democrat is more akin to a Republican in New York than a Democrat.)

I'm going to tell you something that my wife resents me saying. I love contested primaries. I've worked for incumbents and challengers in primaries and loved both experiences. The arguments against contested primaries can start high-minded (they usually don't), but so frequently it devolves into the emotional language of "loyalty", "not his/her time", "frivolous", and "real Democrat". I hear a lot of defense of those terms, so I'd like to offer a contrasting take: Perceived merit can trump all of that, and being nasty about it doesn't help you make your case.

I'm not that different than the people with which I debate this. I feel that tug on my heart and get a little wistful when a long-time, reliable Dem gets into a contested primary with someone who isn't an obvious fixture in what might be called "the never-ending battle". Part of me wants them to be the best choice and be able to just focus on the real opponent from the competing party. However, something wonderful is happening - even in red-state Texas. You have newer or less prominent Dem activists taking it to the next level and running for office. Some of them are dogcatchers, overreaching and a little naive, probably doomed to fail. Some of them, though, are smart, professional, energetic, and not just a credible candidate for the office they're running for, but a better asset to the broader ballot. I hear complaints about contested primaries making a run for office too expensive and undermining a favored candidate's general election chances. Quite frankly, I've also seen some of our revered Dem incumbents get taken down or come close to being taken down in the general election, and I think they would've been better served by having a primary opponent to get them better focused. The best defense against a contested primary for an incumbent is to do your job well and be prepared to talk about it with voters early and often. (Isn't that responsive government?)

Beyond that, though, here's the fundamental fact that should destroy the hand-wringing about contested primaries. Contested primaries are not an ugly mutation of our democratic process. Contested primaries are inherent to our democratic process and are part of the checks and balances that makes it work. When someone argues that contested primaries are a flaw in the system that damages good electeds or candidates, I see someone who either supports a weak candidate or doesn't believe in the democratic system.

Do I like it when a opportunistic dogcatcher enters a race and makes it more problematic and expensive for my favored candidate? Sure! I also don't like it when the Westboro Baptist people use their First Amendment rights to protest military funerals with "God Hates Fags!" signs. In both cases, I feel like someone is exploiting a virtue of the system in a way that makes me feel uncomfortable and that doesn't improve our society. I don't see how we can have the good stuff, though, without the less-good stuff. The less-good stuff should inspire us to do better. It should remind us of where we as a society have come from. Elections are a time when we must evaluate our choices. I'm not sure how that's supposed to work optimally if there is fewer of them at any stage of the process.