Pacific Views

Whither Washington's Republicans? (Part 2 of 2)

I’m always amazed at the phrases that become shared, accepted terms within a sub genre over time. Today we’ll talk about a political phrase – “a Sister Souljah moment.”

In an interview with the Washington Post in May of 1992, rapper and occasional writer Sister Souljah responded to the Los Angeles riots in response to the Rodney King verdict, in which the policemen who beat him were found not guilty. The phrase that the media stuck to was this - “If black people kill black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people?” (One should read here a more complete commentary here to get this quote in the proper context.)

At the National Rainbow Coalition Convention in June of that year, then-Presidential candidate Clinton responded to Sister Souljah being on a panel with disapproval, making note of her interview and stating, “If you took the words 'white' and 'black' and you reversed them, you might think David Duke was giving that speech.” It was seen by some as an indirect slap at Jesse Jackson, who had made a more measured, conciliatory response to her comments. It also was eaten up by the media, who perceived it as proof positive that Clinton wasn’t the same old liberal Democrat beholden to special interests that made white moderates and conservatives nervous.

It was actually a safe move for Clinton, because he already had solid backing from the rank and file of the African-American community due to efforts on their behalf while governor of Arkansas. He also already had the quiet support of various African-American organizations that were not as visible as Jesse Jackson. And there was nowhere else for Jesse, or for any disgruntled African-Americans in general, to go. The end result was that Clinton could both show himself in support of African-Americans without seeming “owned” by what was perceived as “their” leadership. And that meant white folks feeling more comfortable with voting for him.

The Republicans of Washington state are in a similar dilemma these days. They desperately want a viable candidate for Governor, but they need someone who can unite the “money” and “moral” factions of the party. Many in the party hierarchy would like to think that the existing economy can be squarely placed on the shoulders of the state Democratic party, but it won’t wash. If they care, the budget is seen by the average Jane and Joe as the creation of the Republican-led state Senate, and indirectly blessed by Governor Gary Locke, who isn’t running for re-election. And they don’t have to if they don’t want to, since there were no tax increases. They will care, however, if they have friends or family that suffered due to the budget cuts to correct the deficit, and they will most likely be hopping mad at the Republicans. (And Governor Locke also to some extent, but again, he’s leaving.)

The folks in the suburbs that might vote Republican simply will not do so if they are of a “money” bent but of a “live and let live” social attitude - if a “moral” Republican is on the ticket, they will most likely stay home or vote for the Democrat. Not even “gay marriage”, which a majority recently polled nationally said they oppose, will get enough in this state to change their minds where votes are needed most.

Which leads to Sister Souljah…and Pam Roach.

A state Senator from the 31st Legislative District , Pam consistently breaks the key rule of Washington state politics – “the person perceived to be the nicest almost always wins.” As a Democrat, it kills me to say it, but Ken Eikenberry probably would have been a more effective governor than Mike Lowry in 1992. But Ron knew the rules and smiled his way into the Governor’s mansion. (To the detriment of the Democrats, for a time.)

Pam, on the other hand, likes to be nasty, slinging mud with the best of them and almost always coming out on top. When she recently ran for a King County Council seat against Julia Patterson, she apparently tried through multiple means – drug inferences, race and supporting a Green Party candidate that could draw votes away from Patterson - to disrupt her opponent’s campaign. Though no definitive proof could be laid at her feet, such activities soured her campaign for both the press and a majority of the voters

She has also puzzled and angered many fellow Republicans with her relentless desire to be simultaneously a State Senator and a King County Council representative, without giving up one seat to acquire the other. time and time again, she has been more than willing to step on fellow Republicans and violate her own party’s rules to achieve this goal.

And lately she has tended to have attitude problems and mood swings….

Roach is not as “moral” a Republican as some would believe – she is less an evangelical politician and more in the mold of former member of Congress Linda Smith, a hard-charging anti-tax crusader who could reach out to working class voters in the state quite well if they weren’t scared off by her often caustic wit. Don’t get me wrong – she loves guns and hates both abortions and homosexuality, but it’s often been her fight against state government spending that has drawn her greatest support.

However, a lot of people perceive her as a “moral” conservative. It would give folks like Vance pause to publically dress down and possibly receive a challenge in turn from someone good at reaching more than hardcore churchgoing and anti-tax folks, but a message would be sent.

Many would froth at the mouth and be calling KVI radio to voice their outrage, writing letters, making anonymous phone calls. Some would stay home on election day. But a lot of potential “money” Republicans would notice. And they might wonder if the Republicans in this state are making room for them.

As an aside, the Democrats in this state have their divisions as well – primarily between its “activist” and “pragmatic” wings. The conflict between these wings was most pronounced when Maria Cantwell ran against Deborah Senn in the Democratic Senate primary of 2000. Deborah, then the state insurance commissioner, seemed the one to get the nod by the rank-and-file, but the pragmatics convinced Cantwell to run at the last minute, and excellent campaigning plus freezing out Senn’s supporters led to Cantwell’s victory in the primary election. Many activists were left unhappy at this turn of events, and the division was briefly accented again recently, when Governor Locke chose a “no new taxes” approach to attacking the budget deficit, which went aginst the attitude of many Democrats in the state legislature.

But the pragmatics also saw the light – in the way of increased volunteers. It started with protestors of the Second Gulf War that had decided that they wanted to do more, then people disgusted with Bush, and now it appears to be folks stirred by the Dean campaign. (An example – in my local district Democratic organization, ten people became precinct officers at the latest meeting. All were asked to say a little about themselves and why they had decided to join. Eight spoke, and six cited Dean’s campaign as the catalyst that had brought them there.) These volunteers have been overwhelmingly activist, at least in their reaction to Bush, and Governor Locke provided cover for pragmatics to act more activist by his decision to not run for re-election. It therefore made sense for folks such as Christine Gregoire to speak about the need for change in state government to better suit the needs of the people, placating the newest folks involved in the “grunt work” of the Democratic party, while never directly criticizing Governor Locke.

The bottom line is that, as events changed, the state Democratic hierarchy did as well. Because winning elections is what you have to do if you want to create lasting policy down the road.

It all comes down to whether the state party, led by Chris Vance, can put its money where its mouth is. They say they want to reach a broader audience – do they dare risking the loss of a portion of their ultra-conservative wing as a consequence?

Posted by Palamedes at August 26, 2003 05:12 AM | TrackBack