Is Mary Peltola An Elusive "Fighting Moderate"?
Or is the whole concept an oxymoron?
Janet Mills entered the Maine Senate race at the behest of Democratic Senate leader Chuck Schumer several weeks ago, and a day later, their operatives tried to nuke her only real competitor, Graham Platner, out of contention.
Among other things, they revealed he’d been living his life for over a decade with a Nazi insignia tattooed on his chest. (Platner claimed he never recognized the provenance of the “totenkopf,” which looks like a skull and crossbones, and has since inked it over.)
His campaign reeled for a bit, steadied, then mounted a comeback.
How was he able to recover so quickly, from such a severe blow? I can’t speak for Maine primary voters. Some of them may be motivated by ideology or affinity (Platner runs to Mills left on most issues, against the party establishment). Some of them may be motivated by atmospherics (Platner is young and charismatic; Mills is in her late 70s).
For me, though, keeping a candle lit for Platner had less to do with any of that than with this: “I would certainly want to retain the filibuster,” Mills told reporters in Freeport this past October. She went on to add something further disqualifying. “When it comes to [Donald] Trump appointing 200 judges with very questionable qualifications, I would want to have a say in those judgeships.” Blink and you’ll miss it. Mills committed herself to the defense of the filibuster, a procedural anachronism that hobbles Democrats uniquely, without realizing that the filibuster hasn’t applied to lower-court judges in over a decade, or to Supreme Court nominees since 2017.
Unless incumbent Republican Susan Collins retires, the winner of this primary will face a tough opponent. Neither seems to have a clear advantage in the general election. Why support the one who will be in her mid-eighties when her first term ends, and who, when push comes to shove, will stymie Democratic efforts to pass the laws required to fix the country?
It’s become trite to observe that the biggest divide in Dem politics isn’t between progressive and moderate camps, but between fighters and conciliators. Moderate factionalists in particular are at pains to insist that Democrats with humble or risk-averse policy ambitions can still be dependable partisan warriors. They realized early last year that if their favorite Democrats refused to adopt a fighting posture, their careers would be cut short. And so they advanced the concept of the “fighting moderate.” They asserted that Democrats could both moderate and fight.
That may be true in some abstract sense, but in practice, policy timidity correlates with procedural timidity. And why wouldn’t the two go together? Why wouldn’t a moderate temperament select for timidity across the board?
Candidates like Mills are thus poison to the moderate cause. She reaffirms the rule: Moderates are squishes, and leaders like Schumer are perfectly fine with it. Follow them, and we’ll never get out of this mess. They need an exception. Maybe, hopefully, it will be Alaska’s Mary Peltola.
MARY, QUITE CONTRARY?
Why is Peltola running for Senate?
She was reportedly torn for months between seeking her state’s open governorship (an easier race for a better job) and challenging incumbent Republican senator Dan Sullivan. Now, even if she wins, she’ll be one vote among one-hundred. She might even have to serve in the minority.
I can’t speak for her anymore than I can speak for Maine voters. But the most obvious reason someone in her position would choose the Senate race over the gubernatorial race is a deep and sincere desire to save the country. If she runs and wins and becomes the 51st Senate Democrat, it would do more to secure the future of America than just about anything she could do as governor of Alaska. Contra Mills, the way to block Trump’s judicial nominees isn’t with the filibuster, it’s with a Senate majority.
If I’m right about Peltola’s thinking, it’s suggestive of a real fighting spirit. And if she’s a real fighter, then we should show some deference to her campaign choices. Notably, she’s not leading with any of the lofty ambitions at the top of my priority list. She’s taken no public position on the filibuster, let alone any farther-reaching democracy reforms. Her launch video was hilariously parochial. Her campaign slogan is “fish, family, and freedom.”
Peltola may or may not be right about how to best win in Alaska as a Democrat. She’s only won a single general election, and may be poorly advised. But it stands to reason that she’s sincere in this belief: provincial politics are the best way to gain the power required to actually fight.
And so progressives should be on notice: They are not going to get a cathartic campaign out of her. Environmentalists won’t like her views on fossil fuel extraction. Socialists probably won’t like her health care policy. If civil libertarians hope she’ll be a stalwart ally of immigrants and others in the crosshairs of ICE, they’ll be terribly disappointed.
But my prediction is this: If she wins, they’ll all be very relieved. And if she fights the way moderates insist moderates can fight—the big, big if—Democrats will have a much easier time protecting the environment and health care and civil rights than they did last time they had a narrow governing trifecta.
The question is: Will she?
THE FIX IS WIN
If Peltola’s meaning and purpose is to save America, it raises an important question: