The Triumph of “Anti-establishment” Candidates

Primaries on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 are seen as a foretaste of what might happen during the midterm elections this November 2010.

If I had to give some advice today to succeed in politics in the United States, this would be it: stay away from politics. A series of primary elections that were held Tuesday, May 18, 2010 in different states have shown the deep distrust that voters seem to maintain vis-à-vis their political class. Neither right nor left, nor even the center: it is the candidates who displayed the greatest rejection vis-à-vis Washington and the “establishment” who won, without firing a shot.

Dethroned by “Outsiders”

Those primaries are seen as a foretaste of what might happen in the midterm elections in November 2010, when the House of Representatives as a whole and one-third of Senate seats will be renewed. That’s bad news for both parties: the Democratic and Republican staffs have seen their favorite dethroned by “outsiders,” especially as the “official” candidates were experienced and seasoned politicians.

The vote in Pennsylvania is revealing here, as it abruptly ended the 30-year career of Senator Arlen Specter. Supported by President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and by all local Democrat authorities, the former senator has bitten the dust against Representative Joe Sestak, a challenger who, by comparison, seemed a mere apprentice. Another feature of this primary election: after positioning himself all his life under the Republican banner, Senator Specter had to turn tail by registering with the Democrats. Although the positions of the senator have always in the past brought him closer to its rivals, this volte-face has angered voters. “Too many career politicians are a bit too concerned about keeping their jobs rather than serving the public, helping the people,” Joe Sestak summarized, proclaiming his victory.

Similarly, in Arkansas, Senator Blanche Lincoln — in office since 1998 — failed in the Democratic primary to prevail definitively against Bill Halter, the deputy governor on whom nobody would have bet a single dollar a few months ago.

However, it is mainly the Republican side that turned heads while the movement of the Tea Party, which challenged the Republican Party on its right, has set a goal to upset the established order in November 2010. In Kentucky, a powerful local politician, Trey Grayson, was swept away by Rand Paul, son of former Senator Ron Paul, who openly defends populist positions such as dismantling the Department of Education. “I have a clear and strong message from the Tea Party, the winner triumphed: we are here to take over the government.”*

According to U.S. analysts, this way of advocating membership in “anti-establishment” is not exactly new to the United States. “Politicians presented themselves against Washington almost since the founding of this country,”* smiled David Dublin, professor at the School of Public Affairs at American University in Washington, D.C. Yet the advent of the Tea Party is unique in that it destabilizes the Republican Party so deeply. “The Republican leaders are spurred by the potential energy that emanates from this movement, but at the same time they don’t know if they will succeed in controlling it. They are afraid to alienate centrist voters.” Is the Tea Party a blessing or a handicap? “The Republicans don’t have a clear strategic vision yet,”* analyses David Dublin.

Pronounced Polarization

For now, at least, the primary on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 seemed to participate in an increasingly polarized political world, in contrast with the original intention of Barack Obama to build wider “bipartisan” alliances. “While there is a polarization,” concedes the professor, “it is more the result of candidates and the political class itself than the voters.”* The center still exists in American politics. But nobody wants to occupy it anymore.

*Editor’s note: The following quotations, accurately translated, could not be verified.