The Baltimore Sun showered Courtney Watson with praise in
their recent editorial on the Howard County Executive race. They referred to Watson as “an immensely
gifted and dedicated public servant.” They “hope she [Watson] will find many
more opportunities to share her talents with the community.”
Yet, they endorsed Allan Kittleman. Let us examine their rationale for doing so.
They appear to give a great deal of weight to the importance
of having something equating to a relative degree of parity between the two
parties. I can understand the innate
appeal such a proposition would have among self-described adherents of a good government
philosophy. For such voters, it sounds
inherently “fair”…something that might promote moderation and compromise.
However, there can still be a “competition of ideas” within a political system
where one party is stronger than the other.
Moreover, many states that have more competitive two-party systems than
Maryland still witness highly divisive, highly partisan political
environments.
Frankly, their argument would have more merit if Senator
Kittleman had decided to run for Governor.
First, he would have been a stronger candidate for that office compared
to Larry Hogan. Second, even the Sun editorial stated that “Maryland is
stronger when it has two viable political parties…” Note that. Not “Howard County” specifically but
“Maryland” in general. Kittleman is not running statewide. At least not in this election cycle.
It has been established that Senator Kittleman’s voting
record is more conservative than his persona.
How, precisely, is his “kind of independence” going to work out with a
Democratic County Council and a Democratic state legislature? Further, wouldn’t a Republican County
Executive be cross-pressured by his base to pull to the right on economic
issues? On some social issues? It seems to be more of a recipe for stagnation
and deadlock than a path to move Howard County forward.
By labeling Kittleman a “relatively liberal Republican” and
Watson a “relatively conservative Democrat,” the Sun missed two critical
points:
First, both are running as progressives. The key distinction is that Watson is closer
to being a true progressive while Kittleman is highlighting certain policy
stances in an effort to position himself as one…when he is really fairly
conservative on a host of issues (Right to Work, education funding and assault
weapons leap to mind). Second, one can
infer from their description of her that Watson is a different kind of
Democrat. Perhaps distinct enough from
Mr. Ulman to provide a “fresh approach to leadership of the county?” I believe so.
The Sun seems to accept the belief that Ken Ulman will be
viewed as a good County Executive, “whose legacy will ultimately be seen as
having left the county better than he found it.”
And then they use language that might be found in a classic
political science tome. They state that Kittleman isn’t running “as a
repudiation of the incumbent.” Maybe,
maybe not. The point is that if you
believe that Ulman’s legacy should be built upon, why would you endorse someone
from the opposing political party? That
invites the politics of “preemption,” to use Professor Skowronek’s
typology. If you want to extend his legacy,
it makes far more sense to practice the “politics of articulation” and elect
someone distinct from, yet affiliated with, the identity of the incumbent.
The good news is that there is such a candidate. Her name is Courtney Watson.
In short, I suggest that the Sun editorial board re-read
their own endorsement. Perhaps they should
re-think their conclusion. A careful
review of their own editorial might prompt a new one beginning with the phrase:
“On second thought….”
Stay tuned, as more will follow.
No comments:
Post a Comment