The Political Notebook
Nasty and inane GOP guv debate. Robson's 2020 election evasions. A Democratic intervention for Lake?
Does political discourse have to be nasty and inane?
The GOP gubernatorial debate brought this question to mind: Does political discourse in today’s America have to be so nasty and inane?
I don’t know Kari Lake or Karrin Taylor Robson personally. But I would guess that they are both pretty intelligent and articulate women, capable of having a reasonable discussion about current events and making a persuasive argument. Instead, they engaged in the rhetorical equivalent of a mud-wrestling bout.
Now, I’m not a prude about such things. Throughout American history, hyperbole, personal attacks, misrepresentations, and strawman arguments have been a major part of our political discourse. And it is a major factor in political discourse in democracies across the globe.
But it didn’t used to be the whole of our political discourse. Those seeking our votes also engaged in substantive arguments about public policy and the direction of the polity. Lincoln and Douglas didn’t spend three hours just hurling insults at each other.
Undoubtedly political consultants tell candidates that nasty and inane is the only way to win. I’ve never been convinced.
Candidates create a political persona for themselves through their actions. Nasty and inane creates a distasteful persona.
A more positive persona can somewhat inoculate a candidate against attacks. In recent political history, Ronald Reagan is an instructive example.
I know that the negative is supposed to drive politics. But if everyone is nasty and inane, that’s an untested proposition.
Someone taking a different tact would be a relieving breath of fresh air.
Robson’s 2020 election evasions
Robson’s attempt to finesse the question of the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election will be unavailing.
She has attempted to cater to Trump cultists by saying that the election wasn’t “fair” to Donald Trump. But she has attempted to stay on the side of sane and appeal to the Republican establishment, or what remains of it, who don’t want to see Lake as the nominee. So, she hasn’t flat out said that Joe Biden’s election was illegitimate.
Robson cites three factors that made the election unfair to Trump: media bias, big tech bias, and courts changing the rules.
The media and big tech are private entities. They have a First Amendment right to publish, or not publish, whatever they want during an election. Trump is hardly the first GOP candidate to face an adverse media environment.
There is a minor point to be made about courts changing the rules. But the U.S. Supreme Court put an end to much of it, and there is scant evidence that it materially affected the outcome.
In Arizona, the major court intervention was to temporarily extend the deadline for registering to vote in the general election. During the additional time, Republicans actually signed up more new registrants than Democrats.
After all the dust has settled, the only honest conclusion is that Maricopa County conducted a remarkably clean and fair election.
At this point, you either side with those who are telling the truth about the election or those who are lying about it. There is no middle ground.
Through her equivocations and evasions, Robson is siding with the liars.
A Democratic intervention for Lake?
Here’s another illustration of how a truly nonpartisan top-two primary would improve politics: Democrats across the country are running ads designed to elect Trumpian candidates in Republican primaries.
The cynicism is stunning. Democrats argue, with considerable justification, that Trump and his vassals are a threat to democracy. Yet they are investing tens of millions of dollars in support of Trumpians running in Republican primaries, promoting pro-Trump themes.
The record is mixed. The tactic was successful in Illinois and Pennsylvania, but not in Colorado.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see a Democratic independent expenditure campaign here in Arizona on behalf of Lake in the GOP primary for governor.
In a Republican year, as this one is shaping up to be, the presumptive Democratic nominee for governor, Katie Hobbs, would have a very hard time gaining traction against Robson who, despite the persona she has projected in the primary, is a traditional, conventional Republican. Hobbs would have a much better shot against Lake, a full-throated Trumpian.
Lake is being substantially outspent and Robson seems to have some momentum. Democrats might be tempted to give Lake a boost.
These Democratic interventions in Republican primaries are obviously intended to give Democrats a better chance of winning in the general election. Never mind that it brings people whom Democrats claim, again with considerable justification, to be a threat to democracy a step closer to obtaining power.
In a nonpartisan top-two primary system, such cynical, and dangerous, gamesmanship would be far less likely to happen. In the primary, all candidates would be running against the field without party labels on the ballot. The top two vote getters would run off in the general election.
Cynically promoting a preferred general election opponent would be considerably less likely to yield dividends in such a system. The tactic has been tried in California, which has a top-two primary system, with mixed results. But California permits party labels on the ballot, so there are still traces of a two-party system there.
The best reason for Arizona to adopt a nonpartisan top-two primary system is that a third of our electorate declines to affiliate with any party. A nonpartisan top-two primary system is the only one compatible with that distribution of political sentiment.
Reducing the opportunity and potential reward for the kind of cynical gamesmanship Democrats are engaged in this election cycle would just be an added benefit.
Reach Robb at robtrobb@gmail.com.