Iron Sharpens Iron?

Andre Carson, George Hornedo, Litmus Tests, and the Value of Primaries

Hey all. I’ve been trying something a little different here the last couple weeks. In order to keep a steady stream of content coming your way, I’m experimenting with releasing an essay every week, a couple days after the interview podcast drops, discussing something we talked about on the show. Interviews should come out Tuesday with the essay coming out Thursday or Friday.

And on Sunday mornings, I’m hosting a new talk show featuring a panel of guests from around state. HoosLeft This Week brings together a range of Hoosiers from the democratic socialist left to principled never-Trump conservatives. MAGA Republicans lie and argue in bad faith. My hope is, without that element around, the rest of us can discuss the full range of what is possible in our state once we overcome the current crisis. The new show airs live on Project Next’s YouTube, Facebook, and Twitch streams at 10:30am ET Thanks, y’all.

Photo by C D-X on Unsplash

I recently spoke with 7th District Congressional candidate George Hornedo. If you missed the interview, check it out here. We discussed his work in the Obama DOJ, his love of public policy, and some previous campaigns he’s worked on. Now, it’s his name on the ticket as he launches a primary challenge against nine-term incumbent Representative Andre Carson. We talked about Carson’s voting record and party-building skills, as well as Hornedo’s governing philosophy, and the utility of labels like “moderate” or “progressive.” We also talked about his priorities should he win, some current reps who are doing it right, and his relationship to the Israel lobby. This conversation stirred up some thoughts on intra-party conflict, the pros and cons of mounting a primary challenge, and whether litmus tests are appropriate.

Many partisans, Democrats and Republicans alike, have decried intra-party primary challenges to incumbent lawmakers, arguing that such opposition threatens victory in the general election. And yes, that is possible. Tough primaries can lead to bad blood and division within the party. They can consume financial resources that could be better spent in the general. They can dig up dirt, doing the opposing party’s opposition research for them. Primaries potentially risk elevating an unelectable fringe candidate, alienating portions of the base, and feeding media narratives of disarray.

But I believe these risks are worth it, and ultimately good for the party. Incumbents can become complacent or disconnected from their district over time. A primary challenge can force them to reengage with voters, defend their record, and explain their vision. Primaries can energize grassroots activists, younger voters, and groups that had previously worked outside the party structure. They create space for debate and provide a chance for new ideas and movements to influence the platform, as well as exposing potential general election weaknesses. Primaries can widen the party tent, activating volunteers and voters beyond the incumbent’s base. And frankly, even if primary challenges didn’t come along with these benefits, it’s just the right thing to do.

Power should not be concentrated indefinitely in any individual. Primaries give voters the chance to choose in the affirmative, not just rubber-stamp the status quo. They are good for transparency and force candidates to articulate their views in public forums, not just among party insiders. And long term, they improve the quality of the party by keeping incumbents at the top of their game and forcing them to adapt to changing communities.

For these reasons, I am glad Mr. Hornedo is taking on Representative Carson. The challenger raises many valid points. Indianapolis does need more present and engaged representation. We do need more young blood in Washington. We do need to think big because - after all the hurt, and trauma, and death - this chaos must result in a new system being born.

Let’s face it, Carson owes his seat to his name alone. His grandmother, Julia Carson, was a giant in Indianapolis politics for decades. She served in the state legislature for 18 years before winning election as Center Township trustee and then serving six terms in the US House of Representatives. After she passed away in 2007, her grandson won a special election to fill her seat and has remained there with little challenge ever since.

Hornedo cited the Center for Effective Lawmaking legislator rankings and, by their measure, it’s true: Carson has been less successful in advancing his agenda than his peers, even when weighted according to which party is in power. Meanwhile, back home in district 7, the Marion County Democratic Party is a disorganized mess and Indianapolis voter turnout is abysmal. The incumbent consistently raises less money than other members of Congress.

Indiana Democrats are begging for a fighter, for a party-builder, for someone who can inspire the next generation of Hoosiers to get involved. Where is our AOC, visibly and consistently taking aim at oligarchical power? Where is our Mark Pocan, taking a progressive message beyond district boundaries to the rest of the state where their Republican representatives are too cowardly to show up? Where is our LaMonica McIver, putting her body on the line to stand up for human rights and the rule of law?

Andre Carson hasn’t been that guy, but I hope this primary challenge pushes him in that direction, because - for all his faults - Carson has been one of the few members of Congress to consistently stand up for the rights of the Palestinian people. While the vast majority of his peers on both sides of the aisle rubber-stamp Israeli impunity, he has displayed moral fortitude in the face of overwhelming pressure, and that matters.

Since the Hamas terrorist attack of October 7, 2023 - which Carson unequivocally condemned - the Israeli government has responded completely disproportionately and with wanton disregard for innocent civilians. Several prominent human rights organizations - including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the United Nations - have concluded that Israel is committing genocide according to international law.

The United States government - using our taxpayer dollars - has aided and abetted the far-right, ethnonationalist, ultra-Zionist, Jewish supremacist Netanyahu regime in this horrific crime against humanity every step of the way - during both the Biden and Trump administrations. The Democratic administration may have paid lip service to human rights, while the Republicans revel in their cruelty, but the result has been the same.

During that time, Congressman Carson has introduced or co-sponsored several measures aimed at stopping this madness. He co-led the “Ceasefire Now” Resolution in the weeks immediately after 10/7 and introduced a bill to reinstate US funding to the United Nations Relief & Works Agency for Palestinian refugees after it had been stripped by lawmakers. He voted against several shambolic pro-Israel bills in the House that passed with broad bipartisan support, pled with the Biden administration to intervene on behalf of human decency, and in March was one of only 14 House Democrats who signed onto a letter demanding the release of illegally-detained Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil.

While the overwhelming majority of our elected federal officials have been disappointing, cowardly, and complicit, I am proud that Hoosiers can at least point to one of our guys and say they’re doing the right thing.

And for that, I’m deeply worried AIPAC is coming for his scalp.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is a tax-exempt nonprofit group that focuses on lobbying and advocating for pro-Israel policies. They also have a political action committee, AIPAC PAC, that supports candidates with direct financial support. Additionally, United Democracy Project - with a generic-sounding name that obscures their true purpose - is AIPAC’s affiliated Super PAC, which allows the group to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections (though they are not allowed to coordinate with campaigns).

Over just the last two election cycles, AIPAC and its affiliated groups have poured nearly $200 million into American elections. And, though they distribute funds to politicians in both major parties, their contributions come largely from Republican donors.

So, what we have is far-right money flooding Democratic primaries - and it has been particularly effective at picking off progressive, pro-Palestine, pro-human rights incumbents. In 2022, AIPAC-backed candidates toppled Democratic Representatives Andy Levin and Donna Edwards. Then, last year, progressive stalwarts Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush went down at the hands of Israel-hawk candidates. Ilhan Omar and Summer Lee have survived difficult primaries before ultimately prevailing, while up-and-coming left-wing campaigns like that of Shusheela Jayapal were smothered in their cribs.

All of these brave souls had the temerity to say, “Wow! Genocide is bad. Maybe we should say so; and maybe we shouldn’t help do it.” For clearing that very, very low bar, AIPAC unleashed the hounds. Is Carson next?

I don’t know. There is much speculation that Hornedo has been sent to topple the pro-Palestine representative - one of only four Muslims in Congress - but I can’t prove it. We won’t really begin seeing financial disclosures from the FEC until July, so until then it’s all innuendo - but I’ll be watching.

George brought a ton of good ideas to our discussion, makes many valid criticisms of the incumbent’s record, and he rejects corporate influence. Hornedo brings a ton of energy, loads of experience for a guy his age, and didn’t say much of anything I would object to. But, when asked directly if he would accept contributions from AIPAC, he didn’t say the one thing I needed to hear - “I don’t want your blood money.”

We talked about whether labels are meaningful, the danger of all-or-nothing thinking, the usefulness of political litmus tests - and while I generally agree with that labels aren’t terribly helpful and everything comes in shades of gray, I do have a very simple litmus test. One question. Pass/fail. For now, I’ll give Mr. Hornedo an “incomplete.”