It pains me to say this, though I’ve seen it all my life. Statewide elections in Alabama are as predictable as hot weather in July, as ants at a picnic, as the crowing of the rooster at sunrise. For my entire lifetime and for some time prior, gubernatorial elections in particular have amounted to a quadrennial performance of ritual hara-kiri by the state’s voting public — though, on reflection, that is a bit hard on the ancient practice of the Japanese samurai, since the suicidal disembowelment was undertaken as a matter of principle, an act of atonement or defiance, a righteous alternative to dishonor or disgrace.
In Alabama, alas, we have always seemed resigned to disgracing ourselves. This we do with a cheerful but fierce insolence that plays out in the political arena like the tale of a fictional third-world country, beset by racial distrust, institutionalized social divisions and economic inequities, and a political system rife with corruption and dominated by elected officials beholden to a shadowy oligarchy that manipulates the ways and means of democracy to its own ends, and for its own benefit.
Looking at that last sentence, it seems kind of long to me. To which I guess my response is, Ain’t it a shame that it has to be?
This is not a partisan statement. As Alabama’s Republicans like to point out, our state was under Democratic hegemony for most of the 20th century — and, as a majority of the Alabama legislature, through the first decade of the 21st — and we didn’t exactly beat the band in terms of any sustained progressive movement toward clean government or general prosperity during all of that time.
True enough, but since the election of Guy Hunt in 1986, Alabama has seen a succession of Republican governors unbroken but for Don Siegelman’s win in 1998. Is the state better off or worse off than it was 30 years ago?
Siegelman is in jail now, of course. And, to be fair, there are those who are very active in proclaiming his innocence of the charges of which he was convicted. My own sense has always been that I might be persuaded to believe that the charges were bogus — I have not been, though my mind remains open — but would still have a hard time accepting that Siegelman shouldn’t be in jail for something. Among other things, he blew a magnificent opportunity, while such a thing remained at least remotely possible, to build a sustainable coalition around a vision for broad-based progress in Alabama.
Instead, Siegelman put all his eggs in the basket of a proposed state lottery as a revenue source for Alabama’s perpetually cash-strapped public education system. And when the lottery failed at the ballot box, he reverted to the form of most of the governors who went before him, doling out contracts to favored contractors and presiding over a state government that continued to function as it had for a century before.
In that sense, it matters not whether Siegelman had beaten then-Congressman Bob Riley to win a second term in 2002 — or, for that matter, if he had beaten Riley and then contrived to have himself anointed Governor for Life. Likewise, it did not matter that upon taking office, the Republican Riley promptly announced his support for a constitutional amendment to raise property taxes in Alabama — which, by the way, have for many years been the lowest or among the lowest in the nation — restructure the state’s tax system to provide tax breaks for lower-income residents, reduce dependence on sales taxes at the state and local levels, and generate revenue to fund educational improvements.
“Amendment One,” as the measure was called, was one of the most progressive reforms ever proposed by an Alabama governor — and it failed to win anywhere near a majority of votes. Torpedoed by numerous individuals and organizations that had supported his run for governor, Riley toed the political line for the remainder of his two terms in office, quick to run to his right in times of dispute and never again coming near showing the courage to do anything that might bridge the gaps in Alabama politics.
And then we Alabamians treated ourselves to Dr. Robert Bentley, our current and future governor. I have written several times in this space of my distaste for Bentley, and indeed of my belief that he is the worst governor in Alabama’s long and distressingly repetitive history. In fact, I find now that I cannot bring myself to devote him anymore space than it takes to observe that it’s not every day that we manage to sink to a new low.
And yet, I remain a believer in the possibilities of democracy. As such, I will be paying special attention to the outcomes of three races — those for governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general.
None of the Democratic candidates for those offices — Parker Griffith, James Fields and Joe Hubbard, respectively — is going to win his race. What I am looking for are the margins by which each loses, for I believe that those numbers will provide a snapshot of how Alabamians feel about the current Republican domination of their state government, and perhaps about their inclination to move toward a more balanced and progressive approach to government in future elections.
I say this because, to varying degrees, the four Democratic candidates have campaigned on progressive themes. They have done so without the support of the Alabama Democratic Party, because the Alabama Democratic Party exists in name only. And they — or so each claims — have encountered presumptive Republican voters who are embarrassed and outraged at what their party is becoming, in Alabama and nationally, and therefore they believe that they can win the election that is winding down even as I write this column.
Again, I don’t believe that last part. But I do believe that to the extent that each of those candidates can cut into the margins by which Democratic candidates lost in these races four years ago may be read, to a significant degree, as a movement of voters back toward the center of the political spectrum. I believe that would be a good thing, a counterweight to the empty ideologies and rote partisanship that are the distinguishing characteristics of both parties at present.
By the same token, that means that if the Republican officeholders up for re-election receive a substantially greater percentage of the vote than they did four years ago, then a different message is in play. That message would trumpet that the distance Alabama Democrats have to travel to become a viable political entity again is farther than any of them would like to think.