Editorial: White House Discouragement of Primaries Enforces Voter Frustration

On Wednesday, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told the press that the ”White House“ (read, the President) felt that money spent in a primary challenge to Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln would have been better spent in the fall, when she was running against someone that wouldn’t ”care about working-class Americans.“

This of course, was after a ”senior White House official“ had been quoted as saying that the unions had just ”flushed $10 million down the toilet,“ in their support of her opponent, Arkansas Lt. Governor, Bill Halter. I find this reprehensible and believe that such behavior adds to the disenfranchisement of voters.

Despite the fact that Senator Lincoln would have a terribly difficult time selling herself as anything even approaching a defender of working-class Americans, rather than just another servant of special interests, President Obama and Bill Clinton both made strong efforts to court the primary vote on her behalf.

I find this odd, since Senator Lincoln is the kind of ”centrist“ politician that is virtually indistinguishable from politicians of the other party, who primarily concern themselves with the agenda of the corporate elite. In fact, her vote has often been a thorn in the side of the Democratic base, as they’ve tried to gather 60 votes on major issues, such as health care reform.

Then again, former President Clinton and President Obama had only recently failed in saving ”Democrat in name only“, Arlen Specter  from losing to an actual Democrat, in which they offered his opponent a White house position, were he to reconsider his primary run. He said, thanks but no thanks, and sent Specter packing.

Just last week, Lawton ”Bud“ Chiles announced his candidacy for Governor of Florida as an independent, noting that while contemplating a Democratic run, he had been warned by Alex Sink, that she’d bury him under a mountain of Democratic National Committee money.

The message is clear. The established parties do not want outsiders messing up a good thing. If you’d like to help, send a check in the mail to one of ”their guys.“ Otherwise, stay out of the way. They can’t be bothered wasting a few million on a pesky primary race when they need that money for the fall. You can’t actually win, they tell you. All you’re doing by supporting opposition to the machine is ”flushing your money down the toilet.“

The notion that progressive Democrats should worry not about getting rid of corrupt or incompetent incumbents, but focus instead on keeping the evil Republicans from taking that seat is laughable, and the close race in Arkansas demonstrates that Americans are waking up to the ruse. That a relative unknown could become a live primary opponent against a deeply entrenched and heavily financed incumbent, who was running endorsement ads from two presidents (one of whom was the state’s Governor), speaks volumes.

At least a good chunk of Arkansas Democrats recognized that not much would change whether Blanche Lincoln or her Republican challenger, John Booze won the seat this fall. Senator Lincoln supported the banks in the bailout, she ardently opposed a public option in health care, and she has consistently supported unpopular wars. These are issues that are important to most Democratic constituents, so it would seem silly that they should worry about losing her, even to a Republican.

After two years of ”change,“ America, on both sides, is once again waking up to the realization that replacing one team with the other doesn’t always make a difference in policy. Republicans were ousted in 2008, because they were not in sync with the American people at large and still failed to enact much of what was most important to their base. Democrats were not voted into power for their ideas, but because they weren’t Republicans. You tend to get a shorter leash when you win that way.

Americans are now finding that the biggest difference between pre and post 2008, is merely which of the special interests are reaping the rewards. Where Exxon Mobil, Halliburton, and the Carlisle Group were previously in fashion, it’s now Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, and Wells Fargo that have their hands on Washington’s wallet.

But it seems that many Americans on both sides are calling the parties on their bluff. Apparently things have gotten so bad, that activists and voter groups are willing to risk a loss in ”Coke vs. Pepsi“ come the fall, for a chance at something different to drink altogether. It will take time, patience and (unfortunately) money  to make a serious dent in machine politics, but with any luck, the will of the people will remain strong.