Socialists Stumble in Maine, but Remain a Threat in Congress
The all-party primary is the best available vehicle for delaying further inroads
Numerous studies over the years have found little evidence that type of primary—closed or open and their numerous variations makes any significant difference. . . . Type of primary seems to have little effect on the ideological extremism of the selected candidates. . .The political class . . . consists of perhaps 15 to 20 percent of the electorate. . . . These people are generally partisan and constitute the bulk of the primary electorates, whether the latter are open or closed.
As for the . . . all-party primary . . . we need much more research over time and space before we can confidently claim that reform energies and resources should be focused on it. . . .
The problem of party polarization is serious, of course, but it has many causes, including demographic changes, the nationalization of campaign finance, the collapse of local news, and others. Institutional tinkering is unlikely to do much to alleviate it.
Morris Fiorina, political science professor, Stanford; senior fellow, Hoover Institution.
The federal angle
Democratic Socialists of America (SDA) and other progressives are wiping their brows in the wake of the rape charges filed against their candidate for the Senate seat in Maine, Graham Platner, but, elsewhere, socialists are on the march in Congressional races across the country. In a recent essay, “Partisan Primaries are Polarizing America,” I argue that the all-party primaries offer a partial curative to the disproportionate exercise of political power by small groups of extremists. By encouraging independents to vote and a cross-over vote by moderates from the other side of the political aisle, all-party primaries engage a wider segment of the population in the same contest. In the recent California all-party primary, 40 percent of registered voters cast a ballot, as compared to around 20 percent in most partisan primaries—and the “15 to 20 percent of the electorate” said to be members of the political class.
Yet political scientists seem oblivious to the way in which partisan primaries are facilitating leftist extremism. A distinguished political scientist and election commentator, Morris Fiorina, takes exception to my essay in a comment quoted above. Following is my reply to Fiorina’s comment:
In response to my essay, “Partisan Primaries are Polarizing America,” several of your readers have made insightful comments. Mo Fiorina makes a valid point when he tells us that polarization is caused by “demographic changes, the nationalization of campaign finance, the collapse of local news, and other” factors. But he is wrong when he argues that partisan primaries do not have their own.
As the primary season wears on, evidence of extremism in partisan primaries appears nearly every day. MAGA is having an out-size impact in Republican contests. On the Democratic side, New York City’s socialist mayor, Zohran Mamdani, is celebrating a trio of victories in primary congressional contests. Notably, socialist Darializa Avila Chevalier defeated Adriano Espaillat, chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and ally of Democratic Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. Democratic Socialists of American (DSA) expanded its congressional base in a key Colorado primary, and uber-left candidates have won Democratic nominations in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Democrat legislators everywhere must worry about DSA challenges, and some wonder whether Jeffries will be able to hold his party together. A progressive Democrat, Massachusetts’s Katherine Clark, already holds the second-ranking party position in the House.
Massachusetts voters will decide whether to adopt the all-party primary this coming November. Would its enactment weaken the power of Clark and other leftists in that state? Would all-party primaries halt the shift to the right in Texas and Louisiana? No reform can by itself bring polarization to an end, but it is worth noting that DSA did not celebrate any primary victories in California’s all-party primary last June, and, in Washington, the all-party primary frustrates the chances of the one serious socialist candidate in that state.
Political scientists have the luxury to look at dated statistics and wait until more information is available before reaching any conclusions, but those engaged in politics must act now on the best information available. Unsurprisingly, the progressive left is seeking to undo the all-party primary in California, and they filed lawsuits against its adoption in Massachusetts. The extremes know that partisan primaries work to their benefit; it’s up to the moderates to fight for all-party primaries.
____________________________________________________________________________
Paul E. Peterson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University and the Henry Lee Shattuck professor of government at Harvard University. His podcasts are available at https://www.educationnext.org/podcasts/education-exchange-podcasts