Republicans and idealistic liberals were disappointed last week when Ashely Judd, who had been considering a run for the Kentucky Senate seat currently held by GOP majority leader Mitch McConnell, announced that she would not be entering the race. Instead, it will look like McConnell will likely face off against some gray Democratic apparatchik, yet to be named, who will at least have the support of party bigwigs behind them.
Judd, who was widely thought by the state and national party establishment to be too liberal for red Kentucky, had tantalized the political press with hints at a run. The press, in turn bored with its own stale coverage of politics that emphasizes personalities, tactics, and process over substance, was quick to latch onto any indication that something exciting – as they define such things – might be developing in the Bluegrass State. Judd, in short, was famous, shiny, and new.
Alas, it appears that a Judd candidacy is not to be, and it looks like the Democratic machine – that shadowy network of state and national politicos who, with a shake-of-the-hand and a nod-of-the-head, determine the fate of candidates large and small – squashed her candidacy before it could even get started. Indeed, even the big dog himself, former President Bill Clinton, had a part to play in the affaire de Judd.
While the exact details of the campaign to deep-six Ms. Judd are, as one might expect, murky, reports suggest that the effort culminated in a soft snub of the actress by former President Clinton, who had allegedly spoken to Judd prior to President Obama’s reelection and encouraged her run against McConnell. Then, in early March – at about the same time rumors were beginning to swirl around a Judd run in earnest – Clinton also talked with and encouraged to run the establishment’s preferred choice – current Kentucky Secretary of State Allison Lundergan Grimes.
Clinton’s conversation with Grimes, timed to seemingly derail Judd, may or may not have been a renunciation of his implied endorsement of the Hollywood actress, but it certainly conveyed neutrality in the outcome of the Democrats’ nomination contest in Kentucky. This, in turn, weakened Ms. Judd who, despite her celebrity, did not have a network of in-state supporters large enough to challenge the rather lukewarm response she received from well-known Kentucky Democrats. A Clinton nod, combined with her celebrity status, might have overcome that obstacle.
The Clinton snub was also not the only indicator that Ms. Judd would not have an easy time rounding up support amongst the state’s Democrats. Earlier reporting had indicated that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee was giving Ms. Judd a more thorough look after polling showed Ms. Grimes competing more effectively against McConnell. While such polling this far out is usually little better than rank speculation and is more an indicator of Machiavellian gamesmanship than political reality, it added to the anti-Judd backlash that made her bowing out, in hindsight, inevitable.
As it is, it would seem that the lack of a meaningful endorsement beyond a general acknowledgement that, “she would make a good candidate,” coupled with the threat of a truly brutal campaign against McConnell, led her to back down – thus clearing the field for Ms. Grimes. Judd’s aborted run, therefore, can be likened to a drowning man who could have been easily saved if onlookers had decided to throw a rope, but had died because no one would go beyond admitting that throwing a rope would be a good idea. The establishment machine, it seems, had won.
Watching candidates being made, like with laws and sausages, is often not a pleasant affair. Politics, after all, is a dirty business – but for watchers of politics the case of Ms. Judd’s doomed proto-candidacy is an instructive case as it demonstrates the enduring struggle between idealist, populist outsiders that exude charisma and the realpolitik of party insiders and establishment figures who actually get work done. Idealists like Ms. Judd fight for truth, justice, and the America Way – however defined. Realists, worn down by the brutal honesty of politics on the ground, desire only to win. Power before principle is their motto.
The cynical realism that girds the worldview of party insiders is often an anathema to those who believe passionately in a cause. Compromise for such people is treason and positioning oneself to better appeal to an electorate – or party officialdom – is heresy of the highest order. Only unflinching loyalty to one’s stated ideals will satisfy this lot, and their dedication to a candidate who never breaks faith with the true religion can often, rightly, be described as fanaticism.
This can be a powerful political force – as the candidacies of outsider Barack Obama in 2008 and Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012 – can attest, and woe to the party that neglects such power on Election Day. Sometimes, however, such single-minded devotion to the cause can be counterproductive as they paint a candidate into a corner and present him or her as an inflexible ideologue, too unwilling to change to be a viable leader. When such a candidate espouses positions well beyond the mainstream of what voters are liable to support, the consequences for both the candidate and his or her party can be devastating.
The fate of Republican candidates in the last several election cycles demonstrates this clearly. In contest after contest, establishment picks were rejected by primary voters in favor of Tea-Party, movement conservatives who would unflinchingly deliver ‘the truth’ with a capital ‘T’ – no matter how unpleasant the consequences might be or how unelectable that might make them. Favoring ideals over pragmatism, conservatives saw the voters reject them en masse, giving power, once again, to the hated Democrats. For GOP primary voters, the perfect had become the enemy of the good.
Of course, cynical pragmatism of the type that did in Ms. Judd can also dramatically backfire – just look at what happened to Mitt Romney, a man so soulless in political conviction that it was hard to determine what he believed in on any given day during the past presidential election. It is tough to say what Kentucky voters would have been presented with if Ms. Judd had run for the seat – an Akin or a Romney. She was, quite simply, too new to the hardball world of electoral politics for Democratic powerbrokers to gamble on given their overwhelming desire to toss out the top Republican in the US Senate.
Which is exactly the point. Private conversations, half-hearted accolades, and back-room deals are certainly undemocratic mechanisms that elites use to rig contests in their favor, and fly in the face of that cherished ideal known as voter primacy. Indeed, party primaries were in fact instituted for most candidates in American politics in the latter-half of the twentieth century precisely because voters were fed up with the entrenched cronyism and corruption that often accompany elite-led party systems of the type that sank Judd. Open up the system, went the argument, and we’ll be able to throw the bums out and replace them with “good” people.
While this was the theory, in practice primaries as they are actually run across America have dramatically narrowed the maneuvering room candidates and parties have in which to make their case for why they should be elected. This is in part due to gerrymandering, especially in the US House, but the effect can be felt throughout our politics and has in no small part created the hyper-polarized political environment we now operate in. Greater democracy through the primary process has made individual politicians much more accountable to angry electorates back home, but at the cost of imposing greater ideological rigidity on parties as a whole that makes engaging in compromise nearly impossible.
So, before castigating the conspiracy of party elders that sucked the wind out of Ashley Judd’s sails in Kentucky, remember that the true believer, no matter his or her creed, is not necessarily the best person for the office. Sometimes the best candidate is that person who can, quietly, efficiently, and effectively, go about the business of working with others to craft legislation for the larger public good – even if it entails giving up on a principle or two (or three). Maybe Ms. Grimes is that kind of politician. What we know for sure, though, is that the powers-that-be in Kentucky were deeply afraid that Ms. Judd was not.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Mint Press News’ editorial policy.