Kirsten Gillibrand and the Power of Primaries
In the House, Kirsten Gillibrand was known as something of a moderate. She was, according to the numbers, the 219th most liberal Democrat in Congress, which is to say, she wasn't a very liberal Democrat.
But now she's in the Senate, representing all of New York rather than a small, and relatively conservative, slice of it. She's also facing a primary challenge from the liberal Carolyn Maloney. Gillibrand's response, in part, has been to emerge as an unexpectedly aggressive champion of the public option. "I believe that a robust not-for-profit public option must be a part of the health care reform package Congress passes this year," she wrote on the Huffington Post. "I feel that opening up a Medicare For All type system to everyone would lower costs and increase efficiency by injecting some much needed competition into the market." The post's title? "Help me fight for a public option!"
Not the most Blue Doggish of sentiments. This is more evidence for the view that relatively conservative Democrats facing primary challenges -- whether they're Kirsten Gillibrand or Arlen Specter -- become a lot more attentive to the preferences of the base. Jon Chait called this "the primary weapon," and, in at least a couple of notable cases, it's working.
Update: Want more evidence? Arlen Specter will be making an appearance at Netroots Nation.
Photo credit: Kirsten Gillibrand's Senate Web site.
By
Ezra Klein
|
July 24, 2009; 10:13 AM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: The End of Bipartisanship?
Next: In Praise of the Barnes and Noble Book Review Section
Posted by: JonWa | July 24, 2009 10:26 AM | Report abuse
how does she do that lopsided smile thing? it's really engaging in a goofy sort of way
Posted by: bdballard | July 24, 2009 10:36 AM | Report abuse
When you examine her actual record, Carolyn Maloney is not especially "liberal" or "progressive".
There's no salient reason why she should replace Gillibrand.
Posted by: prettierthanyou | July 24, 2009 10:50 AM | Report abuse
In Gillibrand's case, it's not necessarily the primary challenger. Her electorate became more liberal, so did she. She probably would have done it with our without a challenger.
Posted by: NicholasBeaudrot | July 24, 2009 10:58 AM | Report abuse
"There are two models of what an elected offical should be. There is the wise offical. They are selected not for their stands but because people trust them to use their own wisdom to do what is right."
The thing is that hardly any votes taken by a representative require them to use their own wisdom to do what is right. Almost every single vote in congress is taken as a party member. Individual discretion of a low-ranking representative is limited to things like earmarks and the possibility of an occasional swing vote.
The "wise official" excuse only works when the elected official has a lot of seniority to exert personal influence and when the balance in the House or the Senate is so lopsided that it's not worth considering the possibility of giving control of that body to your preferred party by voting for a more obedient representative. People choosing the "wise official" on a newly-elected representative or non-incumbent candidate are deluding themselves.
Posted by: constans | July 24, 2009 11:34 AM | Report abuse
"This is more evidence for the view that relatively conservative Democrats facing primary challenges -- whether they're Kirsten Gillibrand or Arlen Specter -- become a lot more attentive to the preferences of the base."
There is, however, no evidence that they stay attentive to the preferences of their base after winning reelection. The jog towards the (party) center is usually for a few months leading up to the election, and then immediately back to their standard position. Lots of studies show it; we'll presumably see the jog back in a few months. If you want to know what a politician will do in the future, look at what they've done in the past, not what they do during campaign season.
Posted by: Ulium | July 24, 2009 1:56 PM | Report abuse
"If you want to know what a politician will do in the future, look at what they've done in the past, not what they do during campaign season."
Who made up that cheesy slogan? God? Confucius? You??
It's nonsense. If a candidate presents herself as a progressive and once elected turns into a conservative, she will simply lose her seat.
Posted by: prettierthanyou | July 24, 2009 7:07 PM | Report abuse
The comments to this entry are closed.
In defense of Gillibrand. There are two models of what an elected offical should be. There is the wise offical. They are selected not for their stands but because people trust them to use their own wisdom to do what is right. Than there is the repersentative. They believe they are in office to do the will of the people. They will vote for something they don't personally like because they are there to promote the will of their voters. She may just feel she should vote how here district would vote.
Of course she could just be a flip flopper doing anything to get election.