As Arkansas Democrats go to the polls to choose between Sen. Blanche Lincoln and challenger Bill Halter, do read my colleague Monica Potts' great dispatch from Arkansas, where she had a chance to assess the Senate primary close-up. There, she found that Halter's challenge from the left could be something of a win-win:
While Halter's challenge might be a moon shot that looks exciting from the outside -- it is, after all, the first primary challenge to a sitting Arkansas incumbent of any party in 36 years -- from those on the inside, it looks like just the kind of thing Lincoln needs. Bass says it will insulate her from charges of leftism and generate sympathy, among other things. "If she wins, and I think she will, I think the major benefit of the primary challenge for her is going to be kind of getting her campaign stride," he says.
Not only could it neutralize criticism from the right that Lincoln is too liberal, it could also stir up the Democratic base, which would be fired up after a tough primary battle. Her message -- that she has the experience and works on these issues every day -- resonates even more now that the tough derivatives bill she introduced is on the floor
That's not quite how progressives hoped this race would look, nor is it what critics of Halter's decision to challenge Lincoln expected. Time's Jay Newton-Small wrote that the decision of the AFL-CIO to back the insurgency was "an odd investment for unions in Arkansas, a fairly un-organized state – hello, Walmart," while TNR's Jon Chait observed that "that many Democratic members of Congress don't deserve to be challenged in primaries, and that Lincoln is one of them."
But the whole point of the AFL-CIO's investment in Arkansas is to say 'Hello, Walmart!' That's how you expand a movement and also how you gain political credibility. Despite scaremongering to the contrary, labor is one of the most frequently screwed-over Democratic constituencies -- just compare the return on investment for labor's political organizing to the return on investment for corporate lobbyists.
That's not to say that unions -- and more important, their members -- haven't benefited from Democratic policies, but simply to note that when Richard Nixon's proverbial nut-cutting begins, labor's concerns are some of the first to be jettisoned (Employee Free Choice Act, anyone?). Going into Lincoln's home territory with a credible challenge after her enormous flip-flop on EFCA is a signal to Democrats across the spectrum that unions can give you a political headache if you don't play fair.
Meanwhile, the pressure on Lincoln has produced results, in the form of her stringent derivatives legislation. While some of the harshest parts -- including the swaps desk ban -- are likely to be eased, the basic framework is much stronger than anything else that has come forward and indeed represents a huge change from what Lincoln's staff was originally preparing. It's even the kind of populist policy that people are forever arguing conservative Democrats could embrace without political fear, rather than disingenuous claims about the estate tax. And the primary challenge that produced this result has apparently reinforced her political position back in Arkansas.
I'm sure Lincoln would much rather not have to deal with this challenge, and I'm sure that Halter and his progressive allies would rather the odds were higher that he'll win. In the meantime, we've gotten better public policy and some rebalancing of the lines in the broader liberal coalition. Not too bad for a few months' work.
-- Tim Fernholz
