CA 26 and Linda Parks: Proof Anti-partisanship isn’t progressive
by David Atkins
The passage in 2010 of a non-partisan redistricting law and a top-two primary system eliminating partisan primaries has led to some interesting developments in California’s Ventura County. Longtime Republican incumbent Elton Gallegly retired after being redistricted out of his comfortably Republican seat. The new CA26 is very competitive, which has led to a myriad of candidates coming out of the woodwork to contest it, including Democratic 1st District Supervisor Steve Bennett and the hyper-conservative anti-tax crusader and State Senator Tony Strickland. This seat has quickly vaulted to national prominence as one of most competitive in the country.
But there’s another candidate in the race as well, who is already becoming the darling of Broderist centrists everywhere. Her name is Linda Parks, a moderate Republican County Supervisor who has survived well-funded challenges against her supported by the local Republican party, including against Tony Strickland’s own wife Audra.
Because of the new top-two non-partisan primary system, she gets to run without taking a party label–something she intends to do:
Supervisor Linda Parks of Thousand Oaks, vowing that she will be someone “who is not beholden to parties or special interests,” on Monday announced she will be a candidate in Ventura County’s new 26th Congressional District.
Parks is a Republican, but she made it clear that she does not intend to run as a partisan. She said in a statement that she intends to declare “independence from the party politics that are failing our nation.”
Under the rules of the state’s new top-two primary system, Parks has the option of declaring that independence on the ballot. The rules allow candidates to proclaim a preference for any qualified political party or to have their names listed on the ballot as having “no party preference…”
Parks has long been a political maverick unaligned with partisan interests in county political circles. During her 2010 re-election campaign for the Ventura County Board of Supervisors, in which she defeated former Assemblywoman Audra Strickland of Moorpark, she was opposed by the county Republican Central Committee, the hierarchy of her own party.
Parks is in the middle of her four-year term as supervisor, and thus can run for Congress this year without giving up her seat on the board.
She said she intends to highlight her independence in the congressional campaign, vowing not to accept campaign contributions from labor unions, political action committees or political parties. She will rely instead on individual contributions…
“Steve is backed by the Democratic Party and Tony by the Republican Party,” she wrote. “The partisan slugfest hopefully will remind voters how wedge politics and hyper-partisanship has led to polarization, brinkmanship politics and the lowest ratings for Congress.”
Mavericky shades of John McCain and Joe Lieberman, anyone?
The problem, of course, is that Linda Parks has to cast a vote for Speaker of the House. In an election year where control of Congress could well hinge on single vote, her vote might be the deciding one. She would almost certainly vote for Boehner or Cantor for speaker. Even in the unlikely event that she were to abstain, her vote wouldn’t go to Pelosi, thus potentially gifting control of the House to the Tea Party crowd. Moreover, she would either end up toeing the Republican Party line in Congress, or she would be shut out of every important Committee and position of authority. She would also be denied funding for the district by the GOP Congressional hierarchy, which would make her an utterly ineffective representative to keep jobs in the county.
In terms of governance, she would be somewhere between a Blue Dog Dem and an Eisenhower Republican–the same thing these days, really (in fact, the Blue Dogs are almost certainly to the Right of the old Eisenhower Republicans.) She would be a reliable vote for economic policies that favor the 1%, but would temper that with safety net preservation, moderate environmental policies to maintain the status quo (a carbon tax would almost certainly be out of bounds), and moderately liberal social policy.
While that’s better than a raging right-winger, she’s also the sort of politician who won’t do any heavy lifting to get the country out of this mess. She’d be as essentially useless on the GOP side as Joe Lieberman has been on the Dem side until his recent expulsion. Ironically, by seeming like such a breath of fresh air to the anti-partisans, she would be a legislator most likely to defend the status quo from incursions on the left or the right.
The interesting thing about the Tea Party Objectivists is that at the very least they understand, like progressives do, that the system is broken and needs change. Their version of change is horrifying, of course, but they have the same sense of times out of joint needing to be set right that progressives do. The increasingly partisan tug of war in this country is due to the fact that close observers can see the wheels coming off the wagon, and know that something has to be done about it. The very last thing the country needs is more politicians invested in the status quo, which is ironically what the anti-partisan Broderists would attempt to ensure.
Unsurprisingly, however, the media adoration has already begun, including from our local “progressive” weekly, the VC Reporter:
Just a few days after Gallegly’s announcement, Republican County Supervisor Linda Parks of Thousands Oaks stated her intention to run for the 26th District. The new district had already attracted a few known contenders, including progressive liberal County Supervisor Steve Bennett; conservative state Sen. Tony Strickland, R-Thousand Oaks, is expected to announce his run for the seat soon. But what makes Parks’ election campaign unique in comparison to, really, any other we have seen in the county, is that for a partisan seat, she has decided to declare “no party preference.”
Too many of us have relied on partisan politics to ensure that our ways of doing things remain steadfast on Capitol Hill and in Sacramento. As long as they were blue, red or green or whatever the preference, that’s where our votes would go. It didn’t matter exactly who the people were that represented us as long as their parties were clear. Over the years, though, more voters in general have begun to shift gears, some claiming that they have become fiscally conservative, yet socially minded, eco-friendly, etc. We were voting for whatever party best suited our moral compass because that evolution hadn’t been translated into politics. In June 2010, though, California voters did away with the two-party primary and replaced it with the two top vote-getters. Enter Parks. Taking advantage of the new law, it is pretty clear that Parks is geared up to fight the battle to best fill the position, not to be the best Republican.
It’s refreshing to see such a progressive stance in politics. While we are still wary that campaigning could get dirty, that it could turn into mudslinging instead of being about pride in accomplishments and future goals, we stand by Parks in her decision to put down the partisan mascot. We hope to see similar strides as the political atmosphere shifts into a truer representation of what and who Ventura County is.
Of course, Parks’ run is neither a progressive nor positive development, nor is it truly in keeping with the values of Ventura County, which used to be solidly Republican, but has become much more Democratic in recent years and now has a voting majority of registered Democrats. Linda Parks would be a politician out of step with the views of the majority of Ventura County residents, who would be much better served by the likes of Steve Bennett instead.
But this is what happens when problems caused by pro-plutocratic policies get blamed on partisan infighting, and when supposed progressives get suckered into the rhetoric of anti-partisanship.
.