No, it’s not because of Clean Elections.
Posted by: Donna
The mostly conservative panel assembled by the Republic to assess the problems of the state and suggest solutions to them had this to say about the hardening of political extremes:
Kill Clean Elections: Voters approved this system of publicly financed campaigns in 1998, hoping to reduce the influence of private donors and give less-wealthy candidates a better shot. Over the ensuing decade, though, Clean Elections has proved adept at helping extremists of both parties get elected. In a traditional campaign setting, the political views of these folks would prevent them from raising enough money to mount a legitimate campaign. But with Clean Elections, they need only collect a minimum number of $5 contributions to qualify for public funding. Talk of dissolving the system may be the nearest to bipartisan consensus of any of the government reforms being discussed.
First, I’m going to call out the “…helping extremists of both parties get elected” as the bogus false equivalence that it is. The extremism is overwhelmingly on the Republican side. Ask a local conservative to name a liberal extremist in the legislature and they will invariably name Kyrsten Sinema. Okay, so assuming for the sake of argument that Sinema is the Democratic equivalent of Russell Peace (which I don’t) let’s look at who else gets elected in her district, LD15. Senator Ken Cheuvront is in his fourth term. He’s socially liberal but he’s pro-business and you’d be hard-pressed to call him a left wing extremist. Yet he has gotten reelected in the very same Democratic-dominated district that elects the supposedly uber-leftist Sinema time after time. What was stopping an ultra-liberal from using Clean Elections to take Cheuvront out? I mean, other than the realization that he or she would have lost to him?
As for the impact of Clean Elections on the hardening of extremism on the right it is fair to say that it has exacerbated it in Arizona. However, rabid conservatives are taking over state legislatures all over the country. The success they’ve had in states with no Clean Elections mirrors what they are having here. Republican observers in Arizona are using Clean Elections as a red herring and an excuse for the fact that their bad ideas and divisive politics have come to their final, disastrous conclusion for the people who live here and their own party.
If you need further proof that Clean Elections is not the sole cause of hard core reactionaries getting elected in primaries, recall that in 2008 a consortium of GOP business leaders targetted Russell Pearce and Jack Harper. They poured tens of thousands of dollars into those primary races, outspending the incumbents by a significant margin, even taking matching funds into consideration. Harper and Pearce still won handily.
Another myth that badly needs to be dispensed with is the false nostalgia for the “good old days” when the Lege was a bastion of statemanship.
Where have all the statesmen gone? They’ve been replaced one by one, targeted in primary elections by more partisan members of their own parties and seemingly conspired against by a system in Arizona that benefits candidates of the far left and right.
Again, they repeat the risible “both parties” equivalence, while pretending that freshman legislators like Sylvia Allen are a wholly different breed from their recent predecessors. Sure, things may have been more collegial back in the 90s and there were a few more moderate Republicans than there are now. But Republican leadership was pushing the same agenda of tax cuts and social conservatism when Jan Brewer was Senate President as they are now that she’s Governor. The difference is in degree, but not in kind. Fife Symington and Jan Brewer begat Russell Pearce and Sylvia Allen. The country club Republicans in Arizona and across the nation figured an alliance of religious fundamentalists with predatory businesspeople was a winning strategy with no downside risk forever. They figured wrong and are casting about for someone or something else to blame, because no matter what happens, it can never be their fault.
17 Comments
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
Leave a comment
Well said! I noticed the deck was stacked on this panel from the beginning. What else do you expect from the Arizona Republic?
I agree, the line about ‘extremists of both parties’ is a total joke. And again – totally correct that the move rightward of the GOP is a nation-wide phenomenon.
Donna said: “However, rabid conservatives are taking over state legislatures all over the country.”
Are they taking over…. or are they being VOTED in?
Wow, Kancer, good call there Captain Obvious!
Or should I say, Kaptain Obvious?
You didn’t answer my question.
In your original post you said, “rabid conservatives are taking over” and I want to know if they are litterally taking over or or they are being voted in.
Can you please answer the question directly without making fun of my name which has nothing to do with my question?
No, she can’t answer the question directly Kancer, because liberals never like to be put on the spot. She’ll probably respond to you about some grammatical or spelling error, or she will start calling you vile names. It’s the MO of stupid liberals.
…and the MO of members of the Democrat Party. HA HA HA HA!
@Julian: I will give her the benefit of the doubt and see if she wants to debate… or just call names.
Julian, master the English language and you won’t be plagued by mockery from the likes of me. Just saying.
Aaahh, the lovely trolls are out.. Nothing to add, always split hairs, & create a smoke screen. If a civil disagreement is not part of your mentality, it says much more about you than our hostess. You may be flinging poo, but smell your hands.
Thus far, I’ve concluded that Kancer believes that the schools are funded entirely by cigarette taxes but other than that, I can’t discern what he’s trying to do.
@Timmys Cat: I surely hope that you are not saying that I am a troll. I simply asked Donna to clarify her position in this thread, and she refuses.
@Donna: Are you serious? I am asking you an entirely different question on a different subject here and all you can do is “knock” me by saying something from an entirely different thread?
What do you say… let’s debate this subject here instead of dragging the cat in?
Answer my question directly please.
You ask questions that I’m not in a position to answer to your satisfaction. Ask the people who created First Things First why they chose a cigarette tax. Ask the Legislature why we have the tax policy we do.
This liberal will answer you Mr. Troll, and rest assured based on your blogging, you are a troll…
Taking over is incorrect as most of the people voted into office the last couple of election cycles are not that conservative. Prior to that, yes they were voted into office. Then the vast majority of voters were horrified at the job the conservatives did so they voted them right back out. Funny that.
@Donna: All I want to know is if you believe that political positions are being taken over OR if the people are being voted in. There is a big difference and I want clarification from you.
What are you talking about First Things First? You are on the wrong thread.
@Appleblossom: Really. A troll? I am asking the hostess questions about her blog, to clarify her position and I am a troll? Since when did asking questions of the author become troll activity?
So you believe that we cannot say “rabid conservatives are taking over” and that these “rabid conservatives” are being voted in by the people?
I told you why you are a troll and I also noted that conservatives have been tossed from office by voters. :)