It’s hard to know what to make of the SEIU-backed effort to create a third-party in North Carolina. I certainly understand Tarheel progressives’ frustration with the three congressmen who voted against health care reform. But I think these activists may be getting played.
Chuck Stone, a longtime SEANC leader who is chairman of North Carolina First, asked: “Does it really matter if you put a Democratic label or a Republican label on them when they go up there and support big companies and big insurance?”
SEANC and its parent group, the Service Employees International Union, possibly the nation’s most politically powerful labor union, are funding the effort, which was announced April 8. In the days since, they have hired more than 100 canvassers who are rounding up the signatures needed to qualify as a third party on the general election ballot.
This is a top priority for outgoing SEIU President Andy Stern, who considers it a way to hold Democratic lawmakers accountable for their health-care votes. “It’s not a fly-by-night kind of thing,” said SEIU spokeswoman Lori Lodes. “We’re making a very strong commitment to doing this. There is significant money behind it . . . There’s not a ceiling to what we’re willing to do.”
They need to get the signatures of 85,000 registered voters by June 1st, and then they must nominate candidates before July, even though they have not yet identified any candidates.
Now, the SEIU is also involved in primaries, notably, Lt. Gov. Bill Halter’s challenge to Sen. Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas. And that route makes a lot more sense. After all, the optimal outcome is not to bleed enough votes off from the left to elect a Republican, but to actually win the primary and field a candidate you can be proud to support. But the effort to create a new party called North Carolina First is all about achieving accountability through the former approach.
Now, the excuse is that it doesn’t really matter “if you put a Democratic label or a Republican label on them when they go up there and support big companies and big insurance.” That’s basically true. But it matters a lot whether all the committee chairman are Democrats (mostly progressive Democrats) or they are conservative Republicans who want to repeal health care by defunding it. It matters whether we have a Speaker Pelosi or a speaker Boehner. So, why doesn’t the SEIU fund primary challengers? Because, it appears, they know they can’t field a credible threat in any of these three districts (Reps. Kissell, McIntyre, and Shuler).
But, you know what? I don’t think they can do much damage (this year, at least) in the general election either. Here is what I suspect. I suspect that they will either fail to get the signatures or they will fail to field candidates. What they’re doing is trying to put some pressure on these Democrats to give us some progressive votes. And I don’t think that is worth all the effort and resources that Andy Stern decided to put into this effort before he announced his retirement.
One alternative explanation is that Stern thinks two or all three of these candidates are going to lose anyway, and he wants Labor to get credit for their defeat so that they can increase their leverage with other members in the next Congress. That would be a somewhat more savvy strategy than the first scenario, but I still think its advantages are dubious in an environment where even Nate Silver is predicting that control of the House of Representatives is a toss-up.
I don’t think that is the kind of environment where progressives want to play the role of spoilers. I support primary challenges, even where an insurgent upset would make an otherwise safe seat into a toss-up. But that’s the most risk I want to contemplate at the moment. Intentionally trying to throw races to Republicans to put fear into other Democrats? How’d it work for the Club for Growth? They got more party discipline at the cost of their majorities.
In other Carolina news, Pam Spaulding endorses Elaine Marshall. Doesn’t surprise me. Cal Cunningham has a great resume, but Marshall is the more progressive candidate.
And she’s got the cajones to mix it up with Richard Burr. I like her a lot.
I think the Democrats will keep the House .. because I just don’t think this is in any way like 1994 .. but that being said .. if the Democrats do lose the House … does that mean both Pelosi and Hoyer retire? Just Pelosi? And what would that do for Democratic leadership in the House?
A third party may be an effective progressive tool in a few states for specific reasons, but here in North Carolina it would be counter-productive, to say the least.
When there is strong African-American turnout, it skews blue. Harvey Gantt very nearly beat Jesse Helms in 1990 and again in 1996. Yes, we’ve been burned numerous times by candidates who run a bit left of center and then abruptly change direction and move sharply right—John Edwards is a prime example of just such a whiplash politician. But the bottom line is that with Obama as President, the Democratic party has an opportunity to establish some dominance that could take hold long term. Now is not the time to mess with that dynamic.
Has been in a death spiral since Civil Rights.
Dick Trumka exhorting the ~40% (and declining) of union membership that is white and male not to be racist fuckfaces is just more strange fruit.
Same deal for southern Democratic acquiescence to “right to work”.
Stern & SEIU are right that the key for a labor revival is down south. Whether this is the right move tactically is a good question.
Except the Republicans didn’t lose because of greater party discipline. Their greater discipline allowed them pass more conservative ideas which as we all know, are always disasterous. THAT’S why they lost.
Greater Dem Unity to leftist Ideas would instead make the country awesome.
Actually, they did lose in every race I am aware of where the Tax for Growth candidate won the primary.
I meant Club for Growth.
Your argument depends on your assumption that the NCF candidates couldn’t possibly win. I don’t know how many resources they are willing/able to put into it, but given the anti-incumbent mood, it’s not that unreasonable to imagine that a well-backed left-populist could get enough votes from Dems, indies, and even some teabagger types to win in a 3-way race. I don’t know about NC, but nationwide, some of the recent polls suggest that a good plague-on-both-your-houses campaign would get some considerable support.
The example of Club for Growth is just weird, since they mostly worked through primaries and are not a 3rd party, and yet you also say you approve of working through primaries.
If the system is fundamentally broken, as some of us believe, I don’t see just keeping Dems in power as the way to fix it. This president and Congress have achieved some genuine progress and temporary tweaks that work, but also repeatedly remind us that core change will never come from the leaders of established political parties. To me the real question about the SEIU effort is not how they might divide the electorate, but whether they can come up with candidates who change some fundamental assumptions without genuflecting to the interests of the ruling kleptocracy. There’s a sellable pitch for an anti-bank/corporation-hegemony, pro-democracy, pro-civil liberties agenda out there, but can the new party find the kind of campaigners to pull it off? It’s a huge challenge that defeats most who try it. But I don’t know of any other way to bring genuinely new ideas to the table, do you? I wish them well while not expecting too much.
It’s an easy assumption considering that they two and a half months to find candidates and that they have none now.
But you assume we (and the SEIU) has the luxury of knocking out three incumbent Democrats who will vote for Pelosi if nothing else, in order to make some kind of point to the rest of the caucus. That’s what Club for Growth did and now you have Reps. Owens, Schauer, Kraotivil, and others. Party unity is nice, but Speaker Pelosi rather than Speaker Boehner is a whole lot nicer.
I can’t afford to be idealistic when the current incarnation of the Republican Party is surging. Sorry. Save your reform of the system for another day.
These Dems will have knocked themselves out. Who’s going to vote for them? Not the teabaggers they tried to pander to. And not many real Dems — why would they bother? They’ll have to spend the whole campaign season trying to convince the Right that they’re against health care and the Left that they’re for it. Exactly the kind of crap that inspired the anti-incumbent anger among voters.
What other day did you have in mind for reforming the system? When the Dems have 70% of Congress? 80? 90? or 30? 40? I’m sure you’d make the same argument in any and all of those situations, so what you’re really saying is, we must never, ever challenge the system. Which can only come from one of two beliefs: Either you think the Dems, unchallenged from the Left, will initiate systemic reform on their own, or you think the system is just fine the way it is. Which is it?
count me as basically only interested in incremental progress if the alternative is this country being taken over (again) but the religious right. When you can find me strong progress that doesn’t come at that price, I am all for it.