The Angry Mob Says “Off With Their Heads”

“There are some good ones in there, but even still, I’d rather start over. I want every incumbent to lose.”  – Caller to a Boston radio show, May 21, 2010.

Historically, incumbents have had a huge advantage. Name ID, access to funders, goodwill from voters, franking privileges, a more complacent media, etc. coalesce to ensure that incumbents, particularly long-term incumbents, are nearly seldom lose. This is especially true of primaries, in which incumbents only have to convince voters in their own parties.

What’s more, incumbents generally have serious influence in their states, so their handpicked candidates usually win primaries for open seats as well.

Sen. Arlen Specter gives his concession speech after losing to Congressman Joe Sestak in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary.

But in primaries and caucuses over the past few months, powerful incumbents and their allies have been treated like Louie the XVI^th and other French monarchs; one after another has fallen to the wrath of the voters.  Just ask soon to be ex-Sens. Arlen Specter (D-PA) and Bob Bennett (R-UT), soon-to-be ex-Rep. Allan Mollohan (D-WV) or no-longer-Senate-hopeful Trey Grayson (R-KY).

Voters of both parties have sent a message to current political leaders.

That message seems to be, “OFF WITH YOUR HEADS.”

Individually, each of these races can be explained.  Sen. Specter was a recent party switcher and, while formerly a liberal Republican, couldn’t convert liberal Democratic voters who had voted against him for 30 years.  Sen. Bennett was defeated in large part because of a caucus system in which, generally speaking, only the most hardcore activists participate, the system that two years ago knocked off incumbent Rep. Chris Cannon for similarly mild sins against party orthodoxy.   Bennett had co-authored a health care bill that, while different from Obama’s, was too close for comfort in the eyes of GOP activists enraged at Obama’s overreaching health care reform.  Rep. Mollohan had faced a series of ethics inquiries going back years and years and in fact had depleted his campaign account paying for lawyers fighting off various charges. He also had voted for the heathcare bill in a state where it was unpopular even among Democrats, his pro-life reputation in the process. Kentucky’s Secretary of State Grayson, a former Democrat who ran an uninspired campaign against the son of a political cult hero with national fundraising base.

Or read differently… primary/caucus losers have included a 30-year Senate veteran who ran with the backing of the President lost his primary; an 18-year Senate veteran who had the support of virtually everyone in a position of power in his party, a 28-year-incumbent who’d never before  faced a tough race, and a statewide office-holder favored by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (who, incidentally, is the most powerful Kentucky politician in modern history), trounced by an eye surgeon.

Striking.

And consider the races in which incumbents haven’t lose, but have faced or will be facing serious primary challenges for the first time in their respective careers. Former Republican Sen. Dan Coats, while not technically the incumbent, was a towering figure in Indiana politics who left office a dozen years ago with high approval ratings and a lot of goodwill within the party.  And heck, he arguably chased Evan Bayh out of the race. He won his primary with just 40% of the vote, the rest apportioned among four other candidates. His opponents focused on two positions had taken over the course of an 18-year career in federal office – - his support for the Brady Bill (a gun control measure) and his vote in favor of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s confirmation as a Supreme Court  justice (Coats voted with the vast majority of Senators in both parties). His opponents labeled him the “establishment” candidate. And in 2010, that was an anathema.

On the same day, Republican Dr. Larry Bucshon, who hasn’t held political office before but was the favorite of the Republican establishment, barely won a primary to replace retiring Rep. Brad Ellsworth (Coats’ Democrat challenger) in spite of the fact that he raised more than 10 times as much money as his nearest opponent, Kristi Risk. Likewise in Nebraska, Rep. Lee Terry won his primary with roughly two thirds of the vote, but for a six-term incumbent facing a primary opponent with no money or organization, this isn’t an impressive win.  A number of House candidates have experienced the same types of near-misses.

Sen. Blanche Lincoln failed to pick up a majority of the votes in the Arkansas primary and will face a run-off election.

Finally, Arkansas Democrat Sen. Blanche Lincoln, widely expected to win her primary against Lt. Gov. Bill Halter, was forced into a run-off by the participation of a third candidate, DC Morrison, with essentially no money, no name recognition and no institutional support of any kind, who ended up getting 13% of the vote.  All told, 55.5% of primary voters chose someone other than Lincoln.

What does all this mean?

Some people are talking about the effect of the tea party types on Republican primaries, and while that’s certainly a factor, half  the candidates facing serious problems are Democrats, who make up only a small portion of the tea party. Democrats, it appears, are angry too.  Are they angry because the healthcare bill wasn’t liberal enough or the stimulus didn’t spend enough money (as Lincoln’s primary difficulties might suggest)? Or are they upset that their party has gone too far to the left and is spending too much money and passing health care bills that fund abortion (as Mollohan’s primary might suggest)?

The answer seems to differ from district to district, from state to state. The common thread is that voters are hopping mad and convinced that their elected representatives don’t represent them and aren’t listening. They want some sort of revolution even if they don’t quite know what kind.  A “Revolution Without A Cause,” if you will.

The American Revolution was relatively tame and ended with reasoned men creating the best system of government yet discovered.  It has lasted for more than 220 years. Yet there is a darker side to revolution.  In the French Revolution, for example, anybody who even was an associate of the nobility was deemed a traitor and was beheaded.  It ended not with democracy, but with the military dictatorship of Napoleon and then a restoration of the monarchy before a real democracy was instituted years later.  A little revolution can be a good thing.  Too much of it can be destructive to the ends of those who desire it.

America’s political system is not fragile, and it can be argued that each of the defeated politicians had deep flaws.  Nonetheless, the ultimate consequence of the voters’ winter of despair is not yet written.  The country’s political landscape is clearly changing, not just in terms of a defeat of a few incumbents, but also in terms of what we expect of our government.

Cliff Smith