Blanche Lincoln for Senate

Something that the British media seem unable to do (understandably, perhaps) is to report on the details of foreign elections. There are exceptions, of course – the coverage of the 2008 US elections was excellent, in my opinion, and provided some wonderful moments (Vidal v. Dimble, anyone?) But if the BBC hadn’t done that, it would have been highly irregular.

But individual contests are not reported so much. (US papers aren’t amazing at this, either). Yet there are very interesting contests which could prove crucial for the future of the Democrats and Republicans. The Arkansas Senate race is one of those. It’s fascinating. Because, of course, of the primaries system in the US, not only is there the Democrat-Republican fight but there is also the intra-party fight. This is done for the Republicans – John Boozman, Arkansas’ only Republican Congressman, won with over 50% of the vote. But for the Democrats, it is much more complicated.

Blanche Lincoln, the incumbent Senator, only came ahead of the Lieutenant Governor, Bill Halter, by three percent, and it therefore goes to a runoff in a week’s time. Yet what’s remarkable is this: Bill Halter is, by American standards and certainly by Arkansas standards, a liberal. Blanche Lincoln is not only the incumbent, she is one of the most centrist Democrats in the Senate. Yet she is in trouble. 2010 will not be a great year for Democrats any way, as the US electorate turns against incumbents. Yet, according to Politico, Arkansas hardly ever kicks out incumbents, and it seems bizarre that conservative Democrats would choose a liberal as their nominee. Blanche Lincoln should be reasonably safe, at least in the primary. But she isn’t.

But if I was an Arkansas Democrat – an occurrence only slightly more likely than me being named Best Actor at the Oscars – I would cast a vote for Blanche Lincoln next Tuesday.

I’m not going to pretend that we’d be close ideological bedfellows. Nor am I going to highlight her work on the financial regulation bill – mainly because I don’t understand it. Nor, indeed, do I believe anyone from Arkansas will read this, or take note if they do. But Senator Lincoln’s victory is important for the Democratic Party. There is of course the arithmetical reason: she’s another warm, mostly loyal Democratic body in the Senate chamber. But she is also important for another reason: there is a worrying trend in US (and to an extent British) politics. A backlash against ideological diversity has been gaining steam for some time. Look at Joe Lieberman, for whom I have little regard, but who was a moderate voice in the Senate Democratic caucus. Look at Charlie Crist. Look at Lincoln Chafee, the moderate’s moderate. Unions and MoveOn.org on the left and Tea Party/Club for Growth on the right are forcing out centrists who work together. America – like Britain – is in dire financial straits. Arkansas, in particular, has significant problems – it is, for example, the seventh poorest state and has the third lowest median income. The US needs legislators working together in the national interest – a phrase heard a lot of late in Britain (it’s something we’ve needed for a long time, too). The health care debate shows that. Only one Republican – Olympia Snowe of Maine, a state which went for Obama with 58% of the vote – really sat down and tried to compromise. Other Republicans – and some Democrats – refused to compromise. Instead, a debate occurred which fired up dangerous sentiment and in which many legislators felt threatened.

That’s not how government should be done. That’s why we need more centrists. That’s why we need more consensualists. That’s why we need more bi-partisans. People who actually work to solve problems – huge problems – which face us today. That’s why Democrats of Arkansas should vote Blanche Lincoln next Tuesday, and that’s why all Arkansans should vote to re-elect Blanche Lincoln in November.