By: Rob Oldham
I received my absentee ballot for Georgia’s Republican Primary today. The election that most interests me is the race for Saxby Chambliss’s open Senate seat. How original of me, right? The winner of the Republican Primary (voting begins May 20) will more than likely face the surprisingly strong Democrat Michelle Nunn, whose fundraising ability and appeal to moderates has given her some forward momentum. So, it was with a slight grimace that I prepared to face the field of candidates that will produce Nunn’s opponent in November.
Like a kid who just recently learned that Santa Claus did not deliver his Christmas presents, I reluctantly tore into my gift from the Athens-Clarke County Board of Elections. Primary candidates can be frightening. As I expected, there were coal and switches aplenty in the form of extremist candidates such as Paul Broun and Phil Gingrey. Broun, Athens’ own Tea Party-endorsed representative, will accept no compromise on his proposals to deny amnesty to illegal immigrants, slash federal taxation, and continue the fruitless Republican efforts to repeal Obamacare. Gingrey pledges to “lead the fight against the [United Nation]’s gun-grabbing treaty, which Obama supports”, even though the Democrats’ Senate majority seems to be stagnant on the Second Amendment with no intention of moving anytime soon. I also found it hard to crack a smile for Jack Kingston, a 20-year House veteran apparently not afraid of a little public embarrassment or Karen Handel, the former Georgia Secretary of State with an economic reform plan so unrealistic it cannot be considered anything more than political fluff. Businessman David Perdue’s issue platform is almost indistinguishable from that of the other candidates and his comments about Handel’s lack of education are not likely to sit well with voters.
So yes, as I crossed off names from my ballot, a certain cynicism about the state of electoral politics was rather difficult to ignore. The primary election season is ripe with ridiculous mudslinging, extreme policy views, and a reliance on large amounts of cash that can make or break candidates. The end of my ballot was near. I was no closer to making a decision than when I started. Then, it struck me. I saw an unfamiliar name that stuck out to me like a four leaf clover: Art Gardner.
Gardner, a Georgia Tech graduate, is a patent lawyer from the North Atlanta suburbs. He has never held public office before and is more comfortable under the hood of car than in the spotlight of the Senate race. He believes in bipartisanship, is concerned with our current fiscal state, and, most importantly, advocates pragmatic rather than ideological solutions to policy issues. Art Gardner is one of seven candidates on the ballot for the US Senate and is currently polling at less than one percent. And I believe he deserves your vote.
Art is a much needed reprieve from the status quo. He is not a veteran of any political institution, unless the Georgia Bar counts, and would be a breath of fresh air in a GOP stifled with extreme conservatives. Unlike the Paul Brouns of the world, Gardner presents his ideas, which are undoubtedly loyal to conservative principles, in a reasonable way that will not alienate large swaths of potential supporters. He lists specific entitlement reforms, which are unpopular but necessary for a debt-ridden federal government, and also calls for maintenance of the social safety net, both rarities for Republican primary challengers. He suggests modestly bringing down tax rates, but also reducing deductions and credits, which often allow the wealthy to slide under the radar. Garner cites disappointment with the House GOP for being unwilling to strike a grand bargain with Obama and Democrats on spending and tax increases. Gardner’s agreeable positions do not end with fiscal issues.
His stances on social issues do not quite belong in a liberal manifesto, but it is unlikely that he would be welcome at a Tea Party rally either. Gardner supports gay rights, abortion rights, and maintaining existing gun laws. The GOP has ignored the nation’s gradual but progressive movement on these issues and as a result many potential voters are isolated. Gardner believes “it’s time to find a way forward [and] develop candidates within our own party who are not always social conservatives.” What is more, Gardner lives out the values he wants the GOP to adapt. As the founder of the Cadillac LaSalle club, he refused to exclude homosexuals, even when some of his established members rebelled and left the club.
I believe in Art Gardner. He is open to compromise. He does not trash his fellow candidates. He is smart. He is realistic. Do not think I am so naïve though. I recognize that if Gardner was not ranked dead last in polls we would probably not be hearing the same reasonable discourse from his campaign. That is not a slight to Gardner’s character, but an acknowledgement of what is necessary for a candidate to win a primary election. Candidates need voters and they need donations, both of which are likely to come from ideological extremists who pull the median voter of their district to the far end of the political spectrum. No, I realize that Gardner is essentially serving the same role as Ross Perot and Ralph Nader, third party candidates who ran in order to introduce their views into the public discussion rather than actually expecting an electoral victory.
But let’s pretend for a minute that Art has a chance. His moderate, cooperative tone and focus on relevant and important issues, rather than rubbish that excites a conservative base, would befit the GOP well. Unfortunately, Gardner is a third party candidate. His loyalty is to a dying breed: moderate conservatives from Georgia. So I guess I should not tell you to vote for Art Gardner. It is essentially a wasted vote for an inexperienced Washington outsider who is out of touch with how to compete in a U.S. primary election and isolated from his party’s status quo. Me personally? Art is the only type of person I feel comfortable sending to Washington.
