New Mexico Political Winds

This is an interesting mid-term election year in New Mexico.  In recent years the outcome of the Democratic Party primary election has determined who occupies any State-wide elective offices at both the State and Federal levels.  That is very likely to be the case again, particularly as the Republicans seem determined to shoot themselves in the foot.

None of the three Republican candidates running for Governor in their primary have significant name recognition that would mount a serios threat to Democratic Party dominance.  The one guy with the biggest campaign chest via self-funding seems to think filling potholes is the State's most serious issue.

In addition to tissue-thin chances of the Governor candidates there is also a serious leadership conflict in the Republican Party.  Several suits have been mounted against the party chairwoman because of what is described as a conflict with party rules about who is eligible to run in the primary election.

Of course, the Democrats have their own conflicts to wrestle with as well.  Two Democratic Party candidates are vying for the office of Secretary of State of New Mexico which oversees elections.  Both have similar experience and pretty much identical campaign pitches with a heavy emphasis of keeping Trumpian interference out of State elections.  The more high-profile primary race, however, is that for who will likely be the next Governor.

Sam Bregman is trailing his opponent, Deb Haaland, in the polls.  He is a tough talking candidate with a good record as the Bernalillo County DA, appointed by current Governor Lujan Grisham.  Bregman cultivates a macho image wearing a black cowwboy hat, and he is an accomplished orator.  If he were running unopposed he would likely be a shoe-in to replace Lujan Grisham.

It turns out, however, that the other Democrat in the race, Haaland, has built up a formidable dossier as a Party leader, a Congressional Representative and the Secretary of the Interior under Joe Biden.  Haaland's campaign relies on reviewing her experiences in office along with an appealing life story which a lot of Democrats have bought into during her long political journey.

Most of the TV ads attacking Haaland come from a political action committee, Accountable New. Mexico, which is not immediately tied to the Bregman campaign, but is clearly acting in support of the Bregman effort.  Bregman, in his presentations, casts doubt on Haaland's claimed accomplishments, but to what effect is unclear.  As reported in the Santa Fe New Mexican:

"Accountable New Mexico reported its donors in the last campaign reporting period, all four of whom contributed money to Haaland’s challenger, Bernalillo County District Attorney Sam Bregman, in the previous campaign reporting period.

While Bregman has denied any involvement with the group, he is tied to at least three of its initial four donors through the horse racing industry. Bregman previously served as chairman of the New Mexico Racing Commission before stepping in as Bernalillo County district attorney in early 2023."

How all of the above will contribute to the outcome of the primaries or the actual State elections is pretty uncertain at this point.

Today

Obama's Mistake

It is not unusual for politicians to talk about healing divisiveness and working across the aisle during their campaigns.  The difference in Obama's case was that he actually tried to make that work after he took office.  It was a great waste of time and effort.  When he reached out, the Republicans were right there ready to chop off his hand and shut the door on his candidate for the Supreme Court.

I was reminded of Obama's unfortunate strategic error yesterday when I went to a Democratic ward meeting in Albuquerque.  The up side of the get-together was the presence of some bright, engaged young people.  One of the brightest and most articulate spent his allotted time talking about the negative consequences of confronting aggressive rants by Trump supporters, pointing out that their attitudes were likely due to some personal misfortune.  For all I know that could be true, but is it relevant to effectively changing the way the country is governed?

I think it indisputable that people stressed by economic, social and emotional conditions will often turn for reassurance to authoritarian leaders.  We are certainly seeing that now with the rise of Trump and other right-wing leaders world-wide.  It is also important, however, to not lose sight of that fact that people over-all are becoming more liberal generally across the ideological divides.

Just look at attitude shifts in recent decades toward inter-racial relationships, gay marriage and marijuana usage.  Some concrete statistical support for those trends was offered recently in an article at FiveThirtyEight.  The article was specifically addressing the liberalization over the past thirty years of the Democratic Party, but the statistics also support the idea that liberalization has not been confined to the left side of the political spectrum.  While the populace as a whole has moved leftward, governance has moved in the opposite direction.

So, the problem is not the natural age-old human tendency to look to support from right-wing authoritarians.  Rather it is that the machinery of governance has been captured by corporate dark money which supports the politicians willing to sell out the real interests of their constituents -- and not all are Republicans.  An obvious response is to just not support any candidate -- regardless of party or ideological pretense -- who accepts corporate campaign funding.