Picking A Candidate In A Primary

I've been thinking a lot lately about primaries. I've volunteered on Greg Galligan's State Senate campaign and I was active in helping David Englin in his Delegate campaign in 2005. Some activists hate primaries and most at least seem to avoid them. Those that hate them say that primaries cause unnecessary friction, that they can split the party and leave the prevailing candidate weakened for the general. While this post isn't a rebuttal to that logic I will say that I don't agree. Primaries are no more divisive than any other part of our "small-d" democratic process. Primaries are the broadest, most open way to allow regular people a voice regarding the direction their political party will take. It's a neutered form of democracy that permits the party selection process to become so removed from the people that when the voting finally happens in November a whole range of policy options have been foreclosed, or worse, the election itself is a foregone conclusion. Primaries can be messy, but so is democracy.

But how to pick a candidate in a primary?
This is certainly a matter up for debate. Some people have ideological or policy litmus tests that guide their selection and of course we all have certain philosophical bottom lines. Even the most hardened pragmatists (or cynics, depending on your perspective), recognize a limit to what they'll sacrifice for moderation or "electability". A conservative Republican might accept a candidate that has made a no new tax pledge but opposes new tax cuts. She probably won't swallow voting for a primary candidate that openly suggests raising taxes. While a liberal Democrat might accept a candidate that doesn't totally oppose the death penalty but is open to reform. He probably won't swallow voting for a primary candidate that proposes broadening the application of the death penalty.

Other than ideology, some people pick candidates in primaries based on experience or qualifications. They pull out a ruler and measure the resume. Now, of course, there is some merit to this thinking. It goes something like this: all things being equal- both candidates are good people, share similar issue positions, etc. - let's go with the candidate that has proven they are prepared. But this ignores other variables- the truly human variables. It leaves out any subjective review of each candidate's character, judgment, energy. It leaves out, in short, the hard work of selecting a primary candidate. Picking someone to represent you is hard when you don't have easy heuristics like party label. It requires you to evaluate the whole person and determine whether you think they will perform as you expect. Will they put in the hard work? Will they buckle under pressure? Will they stay true to their word?

This is why I support Greg Galligan for State Senate in the 39th District. Greg is a fighter and he's proven it time and again. He joined the Army to serve his country, saving other soldiers as a Blackhawk medevac pilot, and then he went to Congress and served as a Legislative Director to a U.S. Representative because he wanted to make a difference. I'm sure Greg never imagined he'd run for office back in 2003, but he knew that Jay O'Brien was not representative of Northern Virginia values. While the President enjoyed sky high approval ratings and the country was in the run-up to the Iraq war potential candidate after potential candidate declined to challenge O'Brien. And Greg stepped up. He stepped up and ran a strong race in a bad year for Democrats in the General Assembly. Now that it's become conventional wisdom that Northern Virginia is turning blue and every district looks like a ripe opportunity, I'm sticking with the candidate who was there for us even in the lean years.

Comments