It’s primary season in the US. There is an election almost every week from now until September. Candidates are being chosen to contest the midterm senate and gubernatorial elections from Alabama to Wyoming coming up in November. The primaries allow registered Democrats and Republicans to choose their parties’ candidate for the general election and in some states this ballot power is extended to all registered voters irrespective of party affiliation.
The season has already produced a few electoral shocks. An anti-Washington trend is emerging amongst the US electorate. Grievances stem from the fact that some feel Washington is doing too much, with the healthcare bill and financial reform; while others feel it is doing too little, with the economy draining outward and the oil spill gushing inward. Whatever the adopted narrative, both Democrats and Republicans are choosing to deliver an anti-establishment message with the candidates they are choosing. Anti-incumbency sentiments are running high on both sides.
In Pennsylvania, Senator Arlen Specter lost the Democratic nomination to Joe Sestak who ran an insurgent’s campaign. In Kentucky, Rand Paul, a tea party favourite who also ran an outsider’s campaign, won the Republican nomination against the secretary of state, Trey Grayson. A similar story is expected to emerge from Arkansas today, where the current Democratic Senator, Blanche Lincoln, has been forced into a run-off with the Lt Governor, Bill Halter, who is outflanking her from the left with the help of the unions. The biggest showdown of the summer is anticipated in Arizona this August, where John McCain is defending his seat against JD Hayworth, who is challenging him from the right with the support of the tea party.
So, what do these primaries mean for the candidates and for the elections in November?
One, voters are sending a message of dissatisfaction to Washington. They are appealing for change from the status quo and what they see as the petty politics of DC at a time of economic unrest.
Two, this desire can be tapped into by Democrats from the left (eg unions) and by Republicans from the right (eg tea partiers) but only in cases where they can find a candidate who is has the charisma and the resources to deliver the message. It still leaves the centre ground to be fought over by courting the moderates within both parties.
Three, the primaries allow the nominees and the parties to get a better reading of the electorate in preparation for the general election. They offer a chance to reform, renew, reconnect, and rebuild. This is an opportunity the Democrats should capitalise on.
It is also an idea that the Labour party should seize upon. Labour’s imperative to engage with and get in sync with voters make this an ideal time to explore the advantages primaries offer in selecting a new party leader. The primaries system provides candidates with more meaningful opportunities to connect with voters. It entails candidates engaging with a wider audience using formats such as town hall meetings and TV debates. It also allows voters an additional level of participation in the political system. In the UK, voters could include registered Labour supporters or friends of the party. It could follow the model used by the Tories in Totnes where more than 16,000 people voted in the open primary selection process for the Conservative Party general election candidate. Or it could use the example of the Greek socialist party, PASOK, which in 2004 introduced a system allowing both members and friends of the party to vote for their leader. More than 1,000,000 citizens participated in this process, which meant that the PASOK leader was elected by a number five times bigger than the registered members of his party and also by 1/11 of the population.
At a time when both support and trust are at a low ebb, such a move would provide an opportunity to engage supporters and offer them a deeper sense of ownership in the Labour Party. Furthermore, allowing greater participation in the selection of the new leader would give the chosen candidate a greater mandate to deliver policy change. A primary process would also provide the party with an opportunity to better understand voter grievances and engage with their aspirations. Switching to a primary system does not provide a panacea but it would help the Labour party to reconnect – a valuable endeavour following an election that has produced an unsteady coalition and revealed an unsettled electorate.
Find out more about the Progress campaign for Labour Primaries here
There is a problem with the women in this culture. Yes, I know, there are problems with men, too. Believe me, I have heard about them for the last forty years. Some of it true and fair, much of it neither. It was a necessary dialogue just the same. So is this. To understand this we need a brief look at history. Women, in the past, were denied voting rights, couldn’t own land and didn’t have much access to employment that would give them the freedom to make it on their own. This needed to change, and of course, did, as can be confirmed with a cursory glance at the world around you. I laud those changes. But the problem was in how we got here. The reality is that the gender roles of our history were traps for both men and women. Women were relegated to home and children; men to sacrificial roles as protectors and providers. It wasn’t a conspiracy. It was just a matter of survival, and for many thousands of years it worked quite well to that end. But once men made the environment safe enough for women to metaphorically “leave the cave,” it was only natural and right that men change and allow that to happen. And ladies, we did. This is the simple but accurate truth of the matter. Men and women developed gender roles that facilitated the survival of the species. And once those roles were not necessary, they did begin the often complicated path to change. The problem here is that your knowledge of these historical events is largely shaped, convoluted rather, by feminism. Feminists taught you that your history with men was of unremitting evil; that you were chattel, slaves to men who held all power and shut you out with extreme intent. They even gave it a name. Patriarchy. It is a word that has become synonymous with oppression. But feminists were loathe to remind you that “Women and children first,” was the patriarchal mantra, and that much of the social norms, even when misguided, were a product of a code adopted for the sole purpose of preserving your life. It wasn’t always fair, but the unfairness wasn’t always yours. Men died by that code, and trained their sons to do the same. The fact that we still do is the subject for another essay. So what happened? As feminist distortions were increasingly embraced, and intertwined with the legitimate need for change, men did what they usually do. They reacted to the message and not the messenger and unblocked the entrance to that cave. Many of you spit on us on the way out. Many of you still do. It has to stop. This isn’t just about decency. And it is not just about the chasm of mistrust that separates us from each other, or the legions of the walking wounded from this godforsaken gender war. It is about our future. The vilification of men that you have accepted as appropriate now translates to catastrophe for our sons, for your sons. The problem is that what we say, think and feel about people invariably translates into what we actually do to them. Nowhere is this more evident than with our sons, in the here and now. If you take an honest look at the academic environment to which our boys are subjected, you will see that their masculinity itself is under attack with ideology that teaches them they are inherently flawed. Christina Hoff Sommers documented this in her highly recommended book “The War Against Boys.” She writes, “The pedagogy is designed to valorize females, such as teaching history in a woman-centered way. Boys are to be inspired to revere Anita Hill and to “enjoy” quilting. At the same time, schools discourage activities that are natural and traditional to boys, such as playing ball together.” She goes on to say, with sad accuracy, “Most parents have no idea what their children are facing in the gender-charged atmosphere of the public schools.” What Sommers didn’t add to that but I will is the fact that most parents have no idea about this because they choose not to. As girls and girls programs increasingly flourish, boys are falling to the sidelines in ever growing numbers. The results of that are chilling. Boys are more likely than ever to drop out of school and engage in delinquency and other problems. They are representing less college graduates every year. With this diminishing education and wholesale marginalization, they are on a fast track to being the “second sex,” that position that so many feminists touted as the greatest evil of human history when they claimed it applied to women. This is the lasting legacy of spitting on men. Your sons will not be the exception. Young men now grow up to be destroyed in corrupt family court systems where women are encouraged to and even praised for using children, their children, like pawns in order to drain the father of assets. And those same children also have their badly needed connection to their fathers severed in the process. When those exploited, abused children start quite naturally to act out and get in trouble, we blame the father who was removed against his will, for of all things, being absent. And the “freedom” women gained on this frenzied path of vengeance and victimization? It doesn’t appear to have settled well. Women are growing increasingly violent. They are matching men in domestic violence, blow for blow, and they are causing the lions share of injury and death to children in the home. But we don’t speak of these things. We are not supposed to. In your position as the identified victim, and mine as the identified perpetrator, there is supposed to be an indelible silence on these matters. For the most part, there is. That silence is destroying us. And it is a silence that is maintained with the collusion of shallow, weak men and misguided, self-serving women, which is to say most of the culture. The only answer I can think of is for men, and for women, to change. Perhaps you will consider this before concluding that men’s rights activists are whiners or woman haters or products of bad mothers. You might actually decide that most men’s rights activists are men who above all else, seek justice. For their children, for themselves, and ultimately for you. I hope that a few of you will read this and consider it the next time you hear someone say “men are pigs,” or when you hear a woman refer to her first born child as “the insurance policy,” or before you nod your head in unconsidered agreement with whatever negatives about men happen to be making the rounds. All of this will be visited on your sons, and their sons. I hope too, that some of you look at your sons and think, and ask yourself what kind of world in which you really want them to live. When your sons choose wives and marry, I hope you consider the agony they will go through when “taken to the cleaners” and robbed of their children in the family courts. You will be forced to stand by powerlessly and watch them have their hearts ripped out. As always, it will look much different to you when the system you help maintain with your silence crushes your son, and not just some obscure, unknown male whom you quietly think is getting what he deserves. It will happen to more than half of them. The best prevention for this last one is to teach our sons to choose carefully; to scrutinize a woman before committing his life and work to her; to evaluate her morals and values as a woman prior to putting a ring on her finger. or even whether it is wise any more to marry in the first place. But how can we do this if we keep teaching them that such evaluations are the stuff of misogyny? Indeed, how can we do this if scrutinizing women at all is such a taboo? And therein lies the rub, ladies. It is indeed time, just as it was for men, for women to be held to scrutiny, and to account. More importantly, it is time for women to do this on their own. I’ll do my best to provide a fair and compassionate mirror in my writings. It is always up to you whether that mirror is a place you want to look.