Primary Follies

Yesterday, I considered the Republican argument that the proper response to the structural inability of elected officials within the two-party bipoligarchy to effectively represent the interests of their constituents is to continue to elect duopolist politicians, and countered that the lesser of two evils argument is itself the enemy of the greater good (see also: Tea Partisanship). Paul Ibrahim and John Hawkins' positions together constitute a core obstacle to effecting real political change, by which I mean, the election of representatives who are accountable and responsive to their constituents rather than their party bosses and corporate pay-masters. Ibrahim, for instance, argued that the best "way to deal with such politicians [is to] primary their a**. We always have more than two options if we act early enough." Yet the primary challenger is faced with the same problems as the third party candidate, while offering none of the advantages of an electoral bid independent of the duopoly party machines. King's Right Site provides a case in point. In the Senate race coalescing around the seat to be vacated by Ohio's George Voinovich in 2010, the contours of the primary races are already taking shape. King's Right considers the Republican side of the duopoly divide:

Ganley, a political newcomer, faces an uphill battle against lifetime politician & Bush retread, Rob Portman. While Ganley will face an uphill battle, saying some people have already dismissed his candidacy is an understatement. As soon as Portman announced he would be running for Senate the political hacks were tripping over their do-nothing asses as they lined up to support him.

The establishment supports its own. Ganley, who is emphasizing the fact that he is not a career politician unlike Portman, should consider an independent campaign to further accentuate the difference and provide the people of Ohio with a real choice in the upcoming election.