It was a tough loss, 10,000 votes. Bill Halter might have even upset Blanche Lincoln in the primary run-off had his stronghold of Garland County not dropped the number of polling places from 42 to 2, or had a few thousand more of us called to get Halter voters to the polls. But despite an unnamed Obama administration official attacking attempts to defeat Lincoln by telling Politico's Ben Smith "Organized labor just flushed $10 million of their members' money down the toilet on a pointless exercise," I believe the groups who tried to unseat her made the right choice.
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.
Paul Loeb is the author of the newly revised Soul of a Citizen: Living with Conviction in Challenging Times (St Martin's Press, April 2010 ). Bill McKibben calls Soul "a powerful inspiration to citizens acting for environmental sanity." Alice Walker says, "The voices Loeb finds demonstrate that courage can be another name for love." The Sierra Club magazine writes, "Loeb examines the stumbling blocks--perceived powerlessness, cynicism, burnout--that keep most Americans from participating in the public sphere, as well as the rewards of following a different path." See www.soulofacitizen.org
Follow Paul Loeb on Twitter: www.twitter.com/www.twitter.com
And Bill Clinton, shame on you, even if Lincoln was a friend. She obviously is a sell-out. When the US Chamber of Commerce, controlled by Wall St. and big business, is FOR Lincoln you know she can't be very good. But I guess we have to hold our nose and help her as virtually any Dem is better than the average Republican, as hard to believe as that is in this case.
The only way this gal even pretends that she's a dem is when she's fighting for her political career in a primary.
I think Halter should run for the senate as an Independent! Show her the door!
If they don't want it, they can live without it. Now that Lincoln has won, let's see how the Chamber of Commerce sticks by her against her republican opponent.
Union money is no better than corporate money when it comes to political campaigns and my sense is that neither has any place in American politics, especially since well over half of all American union members are government employees who work for the rest of us (and who make way above average wages paid to the rest of us).
Let's get Halter to run as an Independent!!
1) Derivatives.
2) Accountability.
Without Halter's challenge, she doesn't touch derivatives with a 10-foot pole. While it still could be stripped from the final bill, it would never have gotten this far.
And DINOs everywhere now have the message that when you side with big business over working families, you will pay a price. Even though Lincoln was renominated, it came at a cost I'm sure she'd rather have avoided.
Besides, why waste money electing a Democrat who votes like a Republican, unless you're only concerned about Red Shirts vs. Blue Shirts. The support given by the DNC to undermine her opponent would have been better served to help Democrats who vote like Democrats.
Nice!
In the face of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and a primary election in Arkansas that gave NO candidate a majority, ... the White House "Advisors" sound cynical in the extreme. In the face of elections stolen on a national level in 2000 and 2004, they sound criminal in my estimation. Their calculus of how the most critical of our social responsibilities should be conducted, ... to walk away from what others declare "their" election, ... sounds like something we might hear in Afghanistan, or Iraq, nations only emerging from decades or centuries of political chaos, ... not the US.
Obama is very badly served by anyone who suggests political challengers should stand down because the White House says so. He is deluded if he believes that himself.
You are dluded if you think that he is, independence party
Halter ran because he thought Lincoln was vulnerable.
She was the filibuster vote against the Public Option, she was the vote that blocked climate legislation after given support by the DNC, Clinton and Obama. If there is any leverage they have with her, it's being used to stop environmental, labor, health care, and other Democratic platform-based legislation. One can either assume Obama is stupid, or that Lincoln is who he wants. Remember, she polled worse against Halter than Republicans. She's not a sure winner in the fall.
When did upstart Progressives capture America the first time?
I completely agree primary challenges need to take place when the incumbent is simply acting as a placeholder, but actual votes (not just votes to allow debate, then voting against) are unsupportive of core Democratic (big D) constituents on the major issues. Yes, there is undoubtedly value in the first vote cast for the leadership, as is now the talking point. But if that leadership can't count on the support from the elected official, it's only prolongs a dog & pony show instead of putting forth the agenda that was campaigned and won on.