The First District Endorsement Game

Last year, on December 3 and again on December 5, the Hartford Courant ran an article headed “Larson, Bronin battle for endorsements.” The article described the state of the race for the Democratic Party’s nomination of a candidate to be elected to the House of Representatives next year from Connecticut’s first Congressional district.

John Larson is the incumbent representative, having served since 1999. Luke Bronin and others are challenging Larson for the nomination.

It is axiomatic in American politics that incumbency is a huge advantage in any election. Larson’s endorsements demonstrate why. Each of Connecticut’s four other incumbent representatives (Hayes, DeLauro, Himes, and Courtney) has endorsed Larson, as well as Governor Ned Lamont and Connecticut’s two U.S. Senators. Why? Because there’s nothing to be gained from endorsing a challenger, and there’s a lot to be lost. By endorsing Larson, each is assured of Larson’s reciprocal endorsement in their own race, a much more valuable endorsement than Bronin’s. Bronin is, after all, more or less unknown outside of greater Hartford. Equally important, Larson has power in Congress and, in most years, excess campaign funds that he can share with his fellow incumbents in their races.

Thus, even if one or more of Connecticut’s other incumbents believe the state and country would be better served if Bronin were elected, their personal interests are best served by backing Larson. I have no idea whether any of these people actually believes Bronin is the better candidate. They’re all honorable people who have served Connecticut well in their own careers, and maybe they do believe that Larson is the best choice. However, so long as they believe that John Larson is at least capable, there is no reason for any of them to sacrifice Larson’s support for themselves simply because Bronin might be a better choice.

Bronin, on the other hand, has been endorsed by many local politicians, for whom a reciprocal political arrangement with Larson simply isn’t very important. Many local politicians know they have no future in statewide politics or simply don’t aspire to anything more than a meaningful role in the governance of their towns. Thus, their endorsement is made independent of the value to them personally of a relationship with John Larson.

In the Courant’s article, Joe Courtney is quoted to the effect that John Larson is valuable to the voters in the first district because of his position on the powerful Ways and Means Committee in the House of Representatives. The suggestion is that by being on the Committee, John Larson can deliver special benefit to greater Hartford. Meaning no disrespect to Joe, whom I knew casually in law school, I have several problems with that idea:

1.     Shouldn’t John Larson be doing what’s best for the country, instead of what’s best for greater Hartford? Since he has been on the Ways and Means Committee, what special benefits has John Larson actually delivered? Doesn’t this argument really mean that in his role on the Committee, he can engage in pork barrel trading to get special treatment for his district? Hartford gets a tunnel under the Connecticut River and the Republicans get what they want someplace else in the country. Is that the way we want Congress to operate?

2.     If Courtney means that by being on the Committee, Larson can help deliver on the national Democratic agenda, then does it really matter that Larson is on the committee? Assuming that the voters of the first district are supportive of the national Democratic agenda (and they probably are), if Larson doesn’t go back to Congress, can’t we count on the other Democratic leaders on the Committee to push that agenda? Why does it have to be John Larson?

3.     Although the Democrats have hopes of regaining a majority in the House of Representatives, maybe they won’t. How much good will John Larson do for the district, the state, or the country as a minority member of the Committee?

4.     Even if the Democrats do regain a majority, how much good will John Larson do in a Congress with an antagonistic relationship with the President?

5.     Most importantly, if we should reelect Larson in 2026 so we can keep him on the Ways and Means Committee, won’t that argument be true in the 2028 election, too? And 2030? And 2032? Sooner or later, the voters have to decide that committee membership isn’t reason enough to keep sending the same guy back to Congress over and over. Reelecting Larson just because he is on the Committee means that the job is Larson’s for life, or until some earlier time when he decides to retire. Why should John Larson be the one who decides how long he serves in Congress?

Our country is changing. The realities of the 21^st century—political, social, economic, technological—have forced those changes on us. Like it or not, our President is driving us forward into that change. It’s time to elect leaders for the new era that has begun, not to reelect the old leaders because their political friends like Connecticut’s Congressional lineup the way it is.