I wrote this diary back in 2007 about the common netroots call for primary challenges and why it's a weak response. I'm going to revisit that today in light of the health care reform lobbying that we're all concerned about right now.
Calls for primary challenges is a largely useless, ineffective tactic. Why? Let me quote Adam B:
Here's a list of all the incumbent Senators who've lost primaries since 1981:
* Joe Liebeman (D-Ct.) defeated by Ned Lamont (2006)
* Bob Smith (R-N.H.) defeated by John Sununu (2002)
* Sheila Frahm (R-Kans.) defeated by Sam Brownback (1996)
* Alan Dixon (D-Ill.) defeated by Carol Moseley Braun (1992)
Lieberman, we know. Smith had left the GOP briefly for an independent presidential run and returned; Frahm was an interim gubernatorial appointee to fill Dole's seat; Dixon lost during the Year of the Woman in a three-way field. That's it.
Ned Lamont was a VERY strong challenger with huge financial resources and considerable presence in the community. If you don't have a Ned Lamont, and if THEY KNOW you don't have a Ned Lamont (and believe me, they do...), calling for a primary challenge will roll off them like water off a duck's back, especially since after all that, Lieberman STILL won his seat back. It's a meaningless threat, and a clear demonstration of political naivate on the part of those who call for one without a Ned Lamont or better, especially if we're talking a statewide SENATE campaign. It might on rare occasion be different with a House race. Maybe.
Lots of people (not all) around here automatically call for a PRIMARY CHALLENGE every time someone doesn't vote the way we want. Primary challenges are rarely successful, difficult to pull off and can only happen every 2 years at minimum. And often you're not going to get what you really need out of the candidate who can win a primary challenge anyway.....
The key to effective change, effective lobbying is that you need to become a more powerful constituency for WHOEVER is in office or whoever might be a potential challenger, someone who exerts more pressure more effectively then you will get better representation NO MATTER WHO IS IN OFFICE. If you really want more progressive candidates, you also have to persuade actual constituencies for these people, not just the candidates or leaders themselves.
So. What to do instead? What WOULD be effective?
Well here are some responses I consider much stronger:
Brain Tumor Bake Sale outside Sen. Hagan's office
This is one of the best Health Care Reform actions I've seen on this website. It's personal, it's specific, it's positive, it's organized (GREAT press release!), it has the potential to be embarrassing to the Senator, it's newsworthy (because it has the potential to be embarrassing to the Senator), and the organizers directly and positively engaged the Senator's staff.
Today I talked with Tony at Sen. Hagan's office in the Federal Building and received hearty good wishes and an invitation to come inside to present letters and petitions in support of the public option.
It also includes a group constituent meeting, something I think people don't bother to try to organize, and something I wish that Netroots Nation would try to organize around. It's old school, effective progressive standard practice to take delegations to Washington DC to meet with Members of Congress and their staff and it's something I rarely hear discussed around here. It should be.
So what's the leverage? Embarrassment. Also, it's local, and authentic. That gets heard. If it's not authentic, not backed up by legitimate fact or is not local, it won't embarrass. It'll just be easily dismissed by the elected official, the media and the public.
kid oakland's calls for action and specifically, for those interested in pursuing primary challenges, something that actually moves in the right direction without actually being a primary challenge:
if you are, say, a congressperson who is on the fence about real healthcare reform, whether a Blue Dog or a Progressive, it's a true threat to have a municipal or state legislator whose district overlaps with yours who is willing to take a clear stand on comprehensive health care reform including a firm stand in support of a robust public option.
This is a concrete and LOCAL step towards an actual primary threat without actually having to be one. It has the potential to be more effective, and at minimum is very proactive.
Here's an action by local Democratic Party leaders in Montana who confronted Max Baucus about his reluctance to support a public option:
It has been one week since 8 Montana Democratic Central Committees delivered their resolutions for single payer or a strong public option in a health care bill to President Obama and Senator Baucus at the Belgrade Town Hall Meeting in Montana on August 14...
Many chairs of the committees, like myself, had been frustrated much like our founding brothers because "our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury and neglect". Yes we had all received the same form letter from the Baucus office even when we asked very specific questions. So we began to look for other ways to get Max’s attention. The letters to the President did the trick.
Seems like going to the top got Baucus’ attention, and he convened a conference call, wherein he got an earful:
...three days after the town meeting, the Chairs of the Central Committees were asked to a conference call with Senator Baucus. No one could remember anything like this every happening before.
Now you may say "well, but that didn't work. Baucus is still being an ass about the public option, voted it down last week." True, but the campaign is not over yet and I'm guessing those Dems in Montana aren't done either. The fact that they finally got an audience with him indicates they actually have made some progress and have made him notice.
Why is this good? Once again, local, and they were VERY SPECIFIC and CONCRETE with him about what they wanted.
Bottom line in my opinion is that the most effective use of energy should be focusing on getting large groups of constituents to creatively and POSITIVELY get the attention of their MOCs and staffs.
Where have they been inconsistent in their stated concerns? (i.e. health care reform is too expensive, but the CBO says the public option will SAVE money...)
Also, what is KEY to being effective in this regard is to know what the hell you're talking about. What SPECIFIC PARTS of the legislation BESIDES THE PUBLIC option are good or bad? (so they know they're talking to someone who has done their homework, is legitimately concerned with good legislation) WHAT KIND of public option is going to be most effective? What might be their justification for not supporting that so you can argue against that? And by this I don't mean YOUR ASSUMPTION. I mean WHAT THEY ACTUALLY SAY TO THEMSELVES. They are NOT justifying their action by saying "if I don't, I'll lose all those donations." They're just not. If they REALLY ARE a "stooge of the health insurance industry" well then, is there a why? Are they concerned about health insurance companies laying off people in Montana? If so, seriously discuss that. I mean, that COULD BE a legitimate concern for people who work for insurance companies. Not that it's right to prioritize that, but if they have actual constituents in large quantities who may lose jobs, that's a legitimate concern, like it or not. I doubt this, but it's a remote possibility. It might be more something like this from Kent Conrad:
Second, and this is very important to my thinking, the public option as defined by the committee of jurisdiction in the House, the Ways and Means Committee, is tied to Medicare levels of reimbursement. My state has the second-lowest level of Medicare reimbursement in the country. If my state is tied to that reimbursement, every hospital goes broke.
People say, "Just fix it." I've been on the Finance Committee more than 15 years. I've been trying to fix the unfair aspects of Medicare reimbursement all the time. We run into the House. Membership is determined by population, and the big population states write levels of reimbursement that unfairly treat hospitals in states like mine. My hospitals get one-half as much as urban hospitals to treat the same illnesses.
So what's the deal with that? Find out.
I can guarantee you will get nowhere if you go in saying "You're a stooge of the insurance industry and we're going to primary you if you don't vote for the public option." Because 1. you can't prove it and 2. you can't do it.
But if you can find an angle like this, focus on that.
We need to be smart and focused with our calls to action. And for those who are resigned and cynical that it won't work, well do it anyways, because this fight isn't over. We have to keep fighting in the face of what seems like overwhelming evidence that this is a futile battle. Because you never know what action might actually be the tipping point.