Dear Candidates- You're Not Special

Chances are, candidates out there, you're not these guys.

There's a little primary going on in the Lehigh Valley for a state house seat in the Northampton/Whitehall area. Initially it had three Democrats and three Republicans. One of those original Republicans dropped out, and was replaced by a younger one. When it's all said and done, only one of the three original Democrats will be on the ballot. One turned in badly defective petitions that did not have the year, office being sought, or district number on it. That candidate is apparently livid that someone would challenge them for these errors. The third Democrat says they are running as an independent now, because the party leaders were being mean to them. Of course, they announced this with two days left in petitions, leading me to believe they didn't have 300 valid signatures. Of course, there are plenty of hard feelings on this matter. Of course, the one candidate that Democratic leaders in the region liked is the one who printed their petitions correctly and collected enough valid signatures. Those damn party leaders are clueless!

The GOP is split along county lines behind two of the candidates, while the Democrats have settled behind one. I know how much people hate party leaders and their damned heavy-handed tactics, especially when it wasn't long ago that Lehigh Valley Democrats (like myself) complained about the "boss" picking our candidates for office. It's not just here in the Lehigh Valley, people hate the DCCC's picks for seats in Congress all over. Activists would love wide-open primaries, where a purely Democratic system plays out, and they get to pick candidates free of any of those damn procedural constraints. I get it. No one wants to be told how to vote. No candidate wants to be told they aren't the right person, at the right time, for the job they think they can do best. That's common sense, as why would someone run if they didn't think they were the best person for the job? I guess my perspective has changed now that I'm on the state committee, but even I have to admit that sometimes the party picks candidates terribly wrong. It happens all over the country, every year, and sometimes it's not even one specific person's fault.

The problem with the idea of stopping party leaders from tilting the scales in favor of their anointed candidates is that usually the party leaders get it right. Not all the time, obviously, but most of it. You see, it is important that a candidate be able to raise money, or be willing to knock on doors, or maybe know a bit about policy, or be viewed as enough of an adult to fill a seat. These things aren't all nonsense. Sometimes, the most progressive candidate isn't the right candidate, and sometimes the youngest, most articulate candidate is not ready to be the right messenger. Party leaders, generally, are the people most engaged in their regions' politics, and generally have seen enough races to know what does and doesn't sell in their areas. Some basic barriers to being the establishment pick, like a lack of institutional support or fundraising ability, is basically universal. While no one likes to be told they shouldn't run because of money, there's no sense nominating someone who will get drowned in a general election by the opponent. The idea is to get the objectively best candidate, not to make everybody feel good.

Of course, back to the primary I mentioned above- the irony is that the Democratic Party in Northampton County has a basic, blanket open primary policy, and the chairman actually fought to get voter file access for the "outsider" candidates (I can vouch for it)- so I find the charge that the party was less than hospitable to be pretty funny. Brushing that aside, at least one (if not both) of the other Democrats who wanted in couldn't print petitions correctly. Who should be blamed for that?

I have a really radical thought here for candidates- for the most part, you're not Robert F. Kennedy. You're not Bill Clinton. You're not Barack Obama. I know, they weren't who they ended up as, at least at one point, and we should all get the shot to do that. One of the ways you earn the privilege of being a serious candidate is taking the time to go out and be a part of the process, make the relationships you need, and learn what you're doing. Even "outsider" primary challengers like Joe Sestak or Matt Cartwright had built up relationships, had friends ready to advocate for their candidacy, and had the profile to be taken seriously from the start. Build relationships with labor, with LGBT groups, with women's groups, with environmentalists, and with other groups, and watch how your problems raising money, getting signatures, and finding tangible support go away. Yes, you'll have some growing pains, but for the most part, these groups expect that. Taking the time, and doing the work, will be appreciated in due time.

In politics, you can be one of two things- actively a part of the process, or on the sidelines complaining. That choice is up to you. You're not special though. No one is. If you can't do what's needed, you won't find people lining up behind you. Such is life.