Everybody knows that primary battles are bad for a party. They split the base, deplete resources, and allow the opponent to get a message out unimpeded. Primaries are to be avoided at all costs. That is the conventional wisdom.So much the worse for conventional wisdom.
Three new Democratic Senators (John Tester, Jim Webb, and Claire McCaskill) had to win a primary election first. Democrat Ben Cardin won a large primary battle before defeating Republican challenger for the Maryland Senate seat. Joe Lieberman actually lost his primary race before winning re-election. Across the country, Democratic winners had to face serious primary challenges first. Yet Democrats managed, despite all this infighting, to win back control of both houses of Congress.
Hotly contested general election races are not where primary challenges are most important. In those races, voters get to make their choice in November between candidates with often widely diverging views of the world, or their part of it, and how to solve the problems that confront their constituents.
In over ninety percent of races, however, the general election is a mere formality. District lines are drawn so that one of the two major parties has a virtual lock on the seat. In those cases, if there isn't a primary challenge, voters never get to make a choice. The party in power selects the eventual representative. Even those out-of-date party regulars who hate primary challenges because they still believe such challenges hurt the party don't have that argument in the case of a "safe" district. The party can sit back and relax, knowing that one of their own will be elected.
Furthermore, serious primary challenges are the only way to keep those elected officials (and we're talking almost all of them) on their toes. They're going to have to prove that they deserve to stay in office every election cycle in order to keep their jobs.
Primary challenges in those districts also strengthen the party, rather than weaken it. By ensuring "survival of the fittest" in generally low-level races, more people will emerge ready to move into the higher political jobs, having been tempered in the crucible of primary elections. They will learn both how to reach out to voters and how to govern.
Finally, primary challenges, especially in safe districts, expand the party by getting new people involved. People are more likely to vote if there is something to vote for (or against); otherwise, they will just stay home. Since primary voters are party members, this means that party members will vote more often. And people who vote more often get used to voting, which means that when a large general election is close, the party with the largest history of primary challenges has the best chance of turning out their base.
Party powermongers can complain all they want, but if they really want to strengthen and expand their party, they will welcome primary challengers. It probably won't happen any time soon, as those who get to the top by old-fashioned means aren't likely to welcome change, no matter how often they call themselves "progressives", or even "reformers". Only by mounting successful primary challenges can new party leaders emerge who understand how important these primaries are.
Copyright 2006, Dan Jacoby
For a PDF version of this document, click here.
To contact Dan Jacoby, click here.
Return to the Main Menu