| I don't know Neil Breslin, or either of his Democratic opponents. I've never had any contact with any of them. I don't know their history, activities, or positions on issues. This comment is in no way personal.
The 46th SD has about a 2-1 Democratic advantage, so it's pretty certain that whoever emerges from the Democratic primary will be elected in November. Since it is a fairly safe Democratic seat, the only chance any voters have to cast a meaningful ballot will be in the Democratic primary.
I'm a big believer in what I was brought up to believe -- that the reason we have elections in America is so that our elected officials can be held to account for their actions from time to time. Unfortunately, most of our "elections" are a sham -- as often as not, there is only one candidate on the ballot, or at least only one candidate with any chance of winning. The result is that our elected officials are, with very few exceptions, never held to account.
As a result of this belief, I support any election where voters get a real choice.
There are those who say that by mounting a primary challenge to a Democratic incumbent those challengers are diverting funds that could be used elsewhere to defeat Republicans (or hold on to seats where Republicans are challenging Democratic incumbents). This is a shortsighted, narrow view.
It is shortsighted because in the long run healthy primary challenges only strengthen the party by getting more people involved, creating a real debate on issues, and causing the best candidates to rise to the top. What could be a better way to defeat Republicans than by having the best candidates, battle-tested, and solid on the issues?
It is narrow because it discourages participation, not only as candidates, but also as supporters -- and as voters. By discouraging participation, the Party only loses voters over time.
(Note: All of the previous five paragraphs could easily be said of Republicans as well as Democrats.)
So I applaud Messers. Martland and Carney for getting involved. I don't know who I'd prefer to see on the ballot in November, but I do know that the primary will almost certainly be good for the district, the Democratic Party, and the state of New York.
Furthermore, I'd like to see more primaries of Democratic incumbents, and not just in safe Democratic districts. In the short run, a primary in, say, the 48th SD might result in the loss of that seat to a Republican in November. But in the long run it would help build a Democratic base in that area. Similarly, a Democratic primary in the 40th or 41st SD will have a beneficial long-term effect.
Does this mean that primaries are always good in the long run? Of course not. A nasty primary, where half-truths are flung about and the vast majority of the campaigning is negative, doesn't help anyone. If party leaders had a clue how to build the party, however, they would be very quick to step in whenever a primary contest begins to devolve into such a pissing match.
And that's the key -- we need party leaders who encourage, not discourage, primaries, but also draw the line at nastiness and negativity. If party leaders encouraged challengers even to sitting Democrats under those circumstances, we'd see a stronger Democratic Party very, very soon.
Well ... I can dream, can't I? |
