I’ve been meaning to comment on David Brewster’s post-election analysis over at Crosscut — “A bad election for moderates” — but I just can’t work up the energy necessary to read it through a second time. So rather than a thorough, line-by-line fisking, I’d mostly just like to focus on the first few paragraphs.
I wish this change-election had gone further, empowering another new force: the independent center. Roping in disaffected independents is critical to resolving some of the big issues. But in most cases, the new faces from the vital center had trouble, and the electorate (and media) reverted to partisanship. What went wrong?
Start with Susan Hutchison, who bombed in her run for county executive against Dow Constantine, losing 59-41.
I’m not sure I buy Brewster’s notion that most independents are necessarily disaffected, or even that they are critical to resolving big issues, and I certainly don’t accept the existence of a partisan “electorate (and media)” as evidence that anything “went wrong.” And with Mike McGinn in the mayor’s office, and two newcomers on the city council, I don’t particularly “wish this change-election had gone further,” assuming that’s even what it was.
But the words “centrist,” “independent,” and “vital center” used in close association with the name Susan Hutchison? I mean… what the fuck?
Yeah, sure, Brewster goes on to criticize Hutchison for failing the “candor test,” but more from a strategery perspective than an ethical one.
I think her basic mistake was to rely on Dino Rossi’s aw-shucks strategy of brushing off all questions about divisive social issues, such as abortion (not a local issue, etc.) and her obvious-to-all past Republican leanings. Everyone knows, when you dodge issues like that, that you are probably on the conservative side, the less popular side, of the ledger, so nobody is really fooled.
“Probably on the conservative side”…? “Republican leanings“…? Hey David… could you throw in a few more caveats?
I thought the thesis of Brewster’s post was that this was “a bad election for moderates,” so how exactly is Hutchison’s failure to fool voters into thinking she is one, bad for Brewster’s mythical centrist voter?
But the stonewalling candidate looks inauthentic, untrustworthy, devious.
Hutchison didn’t just look inauthentic, untrustworthy and devious, she was inauthentic, untrustworthy and devious. That’s an important distinction.
It keeps the credibility issue alive in the media, enabling Constantine to win simply by charging that Hutchison was (gasp!) a Republican once.
“A Republican once“…? Yeah, like right up until the minute before she filed for a titularly nonpartisan office.
What kept the credibility issue alive in the media was Hutchison’s stunning lack of credibility. And by the way, what exactly is wrong with Constantine (gasp!) educating voters about Hutchison’s obvious-to-all Republican affiliation? Aren’t voters better served by being more informed, rather than less?
To get the independents’ vote, you have to level with them, avoid political evasions, be your authentic self.
Except, you know, when your authentic self is a far-right-wing, intelligent-design-promoting, climate-change-denying, in-bed-with-the-BIAW, ideologically rigid conservative Republican.
(Query: Can anchorpersons actually retain an authentic self after years on the banquet circuit and on the tube?)
Answer: Yes. And perhaps that helps explain why an aging Jean Enersen still has an anchor job while an aging Susan Hutchison doesn’t.
Too, Hutchison’s past, from what I can tell talking with people who knew her in unguarded moments in recent years, was quite conservative.
Again with the caveats.
She probably wasn’t going to be able to come off as a new version of Jennifer Dunn, the popular Eastside Republican congresswoman with many decidedly moderate views on education and the environment.
Jennifer Dunn wouldn’t be able to come off today as the kind of moderate Republican Brewster wistfully imagines her to be.
Not a good choice if the GOP really wants to capture the independents and the center.
“Capture” the center? And what… hold them hostage? Ship ’em off to Gitmo? Water-board them into voting Republican? Strikes me as an odd but apt turn of phrase, considering Brewster’s analysis thus far.
I agree that Hutchison was not a good choice if the GOP wants to appeal to independents and the center, but rather than attempting to capture these voters through lies and deceit, perhaps Republicans should attempt to remake their party by running and endorsing moderate, independent-minded candidates?
You can’t wish your past away, and if you don’t put those values out there, saying you’ve changed in some regards and want to build on some other beliefs you consider core, you just look false and unprepared.
Um… but what if, like Hutchison, you haven’t magically “changed in some regards” simply because the office you’re running for has recently been made officially nonpartisan? What if, like Hutchison, you are false and unprepared?
(Congressman Dave Reichert, for instance, hardly denies that he once was a sheriff.)
Huh? I think that parenthetical line is supposed to be a joke. Either that, or a sign of early onset Alzheimer’s.
The Democrats had only to warn that the “real” Hutchison (fill in the blank with whatever fears you may have) would emerge after the election. Who wants to chance that, particularly with someone so totally inexperienced?
Who would want to chance that? At last count, only 40.68% of King County voters… about the same percent that supported David Irons, a man whose mother accused him of beating her.
Which raises the question: how exactly does Brewster define the word “centrist?”
Is Brewster referring to the ideological center, a somewhat vague and fluid fulcrum between left and right, liberal and conservative, that tends to wander slightly over time? Or does he mean the electoral center, a still vague, but somewhat more quantifiable space that, in a given election, in a given jurisdiction, is large enough to hold at least a bare majority of voters?
By either definition I suppose Hutchison could accurately be described as a centrist… in, say, Lewis County, or in Alabama. But here in King County? Not so much.
Indeed in King County, it’s Dow Constantine who is the centrist, as evidenced by his ability to capture nearly 60% of the vote in a hotly contested race.
So who was this election really bad for? Not moderates. Not centrists. Not independents. It was bad for Republicans.
No doubt Brewster longs for some sort of Republican revival, whatever the label, if only to keep the local Democratic majority in check. Hell, I’m no fan of one-party rule either, and I too fear that without viable challengers from without or within, the Democratic leadership will grow fat, lazy and ineffective. But not having lived through the Dan Evans era, my political judgement isn’t clouded by a nostalgia that fails to differentiate between, say, the Bruce Chapman of then and the Bruce Chapman of today.
I’d argue that the center is alive and well in King County politics, and firmly in control of the reins of power. Both Ross Hunter and Fred Jarrett, who Brewster lauds as “highly regarded suburban moderates” would have been Republicans twenty years ago… in fact, just two years ago, Jarrett was. Now Jarrett has become the number two man in King County government, while Hunter will continue to control the House Finance Committee, from which he can effectively block the progressive tax structure reforms the more liberal wing of his caucus is quietly clamoring for. Indeed, as evidenced by their acquiescence on last session’s all-cuts budget, even the supposedly liberal Seattle legislative delegation reliably votes well to the ideological right of their constituents.
If anything, we don’t need any further checks on Seattle liberals, we need them to get up off their collective ass and deliver the economic justice and tax fairness they’ve been promising for decades. Or at least, get off their ass and try to deliver it. Trying would be a good first step.
As for Republicans, it’s not a rigidly partisan Democratic electorate that is denying them victory, even in so-called “nonpartisan” races, but rather the GOP’s own pathological slide to the far right. Had Hutchison won, based on name ID, smiles and lies, it would have done nothing to improve the GOP’s long term prospects, and nothing to serve the interests of the moderates who Brewster implies shared in Hutchison’s loss. Any Republican victory based on strategy alone will only delay the reformation the GOP needs to embrace in order to bring their party closer in line with the values of the majority of King County voters.
So if Brewster really wants to see local Republicans come back to a point of political relevance, my suggestion is that he stop coddling them. It’s not their strategy that is at fault. It’s not their lack of candor. It’s their extremist views.
And I just don’t see how the electoral loss of an extremist like Hutchison supports the thesis that this was a bad election for moderates.
I think Suzie’s biggest mistake was being a wingnut in the first place; and her second biggest mistake was thinking she could get away with lying to voters about who and what she is.
What makes Brewster think anyone in the GOP is interested in capturing the center? I mean, WTF, they’re busily purging anyone who doesn’t advocate the violent overthrow of President Obama! They think moderates are traitors! Who is this Brewster guy and what rock does he live under?
Suzie got the 41% that Republicans always get in King County, so she didn’t fool anyone. Which is a good thing.
Thanks Goldy for an incisive analysis. Susan was not just a liar, she was a lying extremist. Maybe next time the 2009 David Brewster can talk the 1971 Bruce Chapman into running against the 1999 Dave Reichert. That might stir up the Mighty Middle…
“Is Brewster referring to the ideological center”
What ideological center? I’m under the distinct impression the “center” consists of people who don’t care enough about politics to know anything about candidates or issues. There’s nothing ideological about it; these are merely uninformed voters who sway with the wind. There’s not an “ideology of the center” that says “let’s give the right half of what they want and the left half of what they want” or tries to craft policy by an arranged marriage of opposing ideologues.
@4 I don’t know what possessed the voters who passed that Republican-sponsored “nonpartisan” bullshit to think that slapping a “nonpartisan” label on a public office changes partisan politicians into something else.
@4 (continued) However, I do think we should have a uniform statewide system. If county offices are “nonpartisan” in King County, they should be “nonpartisan” in the other 38 counties too. This is something the 2010 legislature should address.
This is an interesting post.
I watched Jon Stewart’s recent interview with Lou Dobbs, in which Dobbs put forward his basic conceit: that he represents a large, disaffected, politically independent, middle class. On his shows, he wraps this conceit around his racist anti-immigrant screeds and conspiracy theories.
I’ve noticed during the last couple of years that the loony far right has started claiming political independence, so that it can attack not just Democrats as liberal, but also Republicans like Lindsey Graham, which is hilarious.
Kind of a long post, but worth it for this line:
I can’t bring myself to read through Goldy’s story once.
this is where I stopped
are you high, goldy?
Been wearing Josh Fiet’s “unbiased” colored glasses.
The constant lobbying by the Stranger, Publicola, your own bullshit, and Knute Berger calling Mallahan a “shill” in his gosh, who should I vote for column, should have to be claimed by McGinn as in-kind contributions.
Somehow you medi-ish people chose to create a backstory for McGinn, the developer greenwashing, lawyer, lobbyist, Mercury media creation, as this selfless activist.
The fact is that this election was a battle of the developer sellouts.
Both candidates agreed on zoning in a tone of density, few medi-ish people explored what that really means, esp for the “neighborhood activist” non-profit lobbyist for Vulcan.
McGinn pulled in $60k a year by getting Seattle to pay for “parks” levy that is being used to green up new development.
Welcome Mayor McGreenwash.
As the NW’s leading apostle of “High Broderism”, Brewster is bound to be disappointed by most if not all elections.
Nice point Goldy – the GOP is just spinning it wheels and digging itself in a deeper hole in King County, Western Washinton and in the entire state as long as they spout the reactionary anti-immigratn, anti-health care and knee jerk anti-tax platform.
The majority of voters and the majority of the state (except for some islands in Eastern Washington) have rejected those trogolodyte views. Voters want people who will actually try to solve problems – not just whine about “socialism”. No one believes that whine anymore – people want good paying jobs, a clean environment and good health care. The GOP formulas have given us severe recession, huge debt due to unnecessary miliaty ventures and lousy helath care that increases in cost as the services go down.
The bleating that we have the best health care in the world….is just that, bleating. We pay more and get less that any country in the world. We pay more for drugs, we pay more overall and we get health care equivalent to Slovenia.
Eom
A birther in Denver has put up a billboard depicting President Obama as a turban-wearing jihadist and blaming the Fort Hood massacre on him.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34.....news-life/
Roger Rabbit Commentary: The guy who owns this billboard is a used car dealer. ‘Nuff said. Hey, before you buy a used car from this guy you’d better check for sawdust in the brakes … just sayin’.
Personally, if I saw a sign like that in a business, I’d turn around and walk out.
In just 1 hour Senate Democrats and independents will shoot down GOPers’ attempts to block health care reform.
Keep in mind, fellow progressives, that even if the final bill is less than what we want, it doesn’t go into effect until 2013, so there will be opportunities to improve it. The best way to do that is by expanding our majorities in the House and Senate in next year’s election, especially the Senate.
Assuming any public option in the final legislation will be “opt in” or “opt out,” I’ll say right now that I’ll never live in a state that opts out — just as I’ll never live in a so-called “right to work [for low wages]” state. In fact, I don’t understand why anyone would live in a low-wage, no-insurance state! I’d be loading my possessions in a Model A and looking at a road map.
In fact, the so-called “right to work [for low wages]” have been losing population relative to the rest of the country ever since those laws were passed. People are voting with their feet. I mean, seriously, who would want to live in a state that makes Mexico look rich by comparison? Only Republicans can love policies that keep people in poverty.
@10 Since you didn’t read Goldy’s post, you don’t know what he said, so how the hell can you comment on it? Dope.
@12 “people want good paying jobs, a clean environment and good health care”
Republicans know this, which is why they want to make voting as difficult as possible. You see, most voters don’t want the right things, which is for Republicans to have all the money and lord it over everyone else and tell everyone how they have to live. Until the majority agrees to let Republicans take all the money for themselves and run everyone else’s lives for them, they just can’t be allowed to vote. But if they vote anyway, and vote out Republicans, then it will be necessary to overthrow the government they elect with armed force. Because Republicans just can’t stand the idea of people having good jobs, decent incomes, and health care.
The health bill moveth forward and fucketh all troglodytic republican scumbags.
Mt. Baker @10,
Um… why don’t you complete my sentence before criticizing it? What I wrote was:
I obviously accept the existence of both a partisan electorate and media. I just don’t think that’s such a bad thing.
Oh, and criticize the other media outlets all you want, but I sincerely doubt that the McGinn campaign considered me much of an ally. Yes, I voted for McGinn, and explained why, but hardly established myself as a fanboy.
And I think it is a bad thing, I do agree that you are no fanboy, lumping you in with Josh (the unbiased one, dares you to prove it) was wrong.
I’ll insert RR’s comment into your statement.
So, you say bias in media is not a bad thing, and RR says many voters are uniformed, and you do not see any harm in it.
Is the bias in the media a contributing factor in having so many uninformed voters?
Would there have been “harm” if Mallahan had won? Would you be railing against the Seattle Times?
I suppose I should say I am sorry, Goldy. I am sorry that I lumped you in with those others.
Meanwhile, over at the Stranger…
posted by PAUL CONSTANT on SAT, NOV 21, 2009 at 10:04 AM
http://slog.thestranger.com/sl.....ike-mcginn
The Stranger, not just biased, but a full-on mancrush.
“arranged marriage of opposing ideologues”
Beautiful phrase, RR.
@18 It isn’t the purpose of health care reform to fuck Republican troglodytes, even though they deserve a fucking. This will benefit them, too. Let’s not forget that Democrats are writing legislation to help all Americans — including those who oppose it. Fifty years from now, it won’t even be controversial, and Republicans and Democrats alike will wonder how their ancestors ever got along with it.
Brewster is very much a machine democrat, if not the center spoke, ’round here.
Independent center?
Don’t make me laugh – they’re reactionary rightwing conservatives who just hate America, our Middle Class, and our Seattle refusal to be sheep to the elites that want to fleece us.
By the way, David … don’t bring a knife to a vote fight … you’ll always lose – and I’ll be there on the winning side.
Brewster thinks Hutchison is a change agent moderate, eh?
No wonder he lets that cranky old hoot Ted Van Dyk write on Crosscut.