What is the most likely scenario that led Alvin Greene to run? It is difficult to fathom that someone in Greene’s situation would have serious ambitions for the United States Senate, strong enough to invest a large part of his available capital. Some wealthy individual who supports Jim DeMint may have seen that potential Democratic opponent Vic Rawl was at least a plausible challenger. Against all odds and inexplicably, that supporter gave Greene the money as a long shot to derail Rawl’s Senate bid.
It is an unlikely set of facts, but the facts speak for themselves. Greene is an unemployed man living with his father. Common sense dictates that even if he had $10,000 to spend on any one item, he would be hard-pressed to spend that in a run against DeMint, even if the Democratic nomination was assured. I am a gainfully employed attorney in a dual-income household, and I could not see spending $10,000 in a long-shot run against an immensely popular conservative senator in a diehard Republican state. It is a better idea to buy a ticket to Vegas and bet on black.
Putting aside the conspiracy theories and my admiration and affection for Vic Rawl, there is something else notable about the Greene candidacy, looking solely at the resumés of the candidates involved. Does an unemployed military veteran have any right to run against a former state legislator, circuit court judge, and current county councilman? I say he does.
While my clear preference would have been for Rawl to have won up the Democratic nomination and taken on DeMint’s brand of Tea Party conservatism, I am mildly put off by those who suggest someone of Greene’s caliber has no right to run in the first place. I, too, used to dismiss the Mark Knapps of the world, who ran against a mighty incumbent like Joseph P. Riley, Jr. knowing he had little chance of winning. I had the same feeling about Ben Frasier, who ran for the 1st Congressional District Democratic nomination again and again and lost … until this year. Why do seemingly unqualified candidates waste their time and our time running against political juggernauts they cannot hope to defeat?
They do it for the same reason that first-term Sen. Barack Obama took on the Clinton political dynasty in search of an office never held by an African American in the history of our country: Underdogs deserve a chance to run. If for no other reason, they help define the assets and liabilities of the preferred candidate. The alternative, the cliché goes, are elections like they had in the former Soviet Union, where Vladimir Putin is your only choice or you cannot vote at all.
Linda Ketner may have seemed like a long shot to some in her recent bid to defeat Henry Brown, despite a well-funded campaign. Although she did not win, her strong campaign highlighted cracks in the foundation of support for Brown and arguably led to his retirement. Her run also inspired countless others.
It appears to me that Alvin Greene is as much a victim in this situation as anyone else, but his right to run should not be questioned. The benefits of some campaigns are not always realized in the same election cycle. When long-shot candidates no longer have the motivation to run against establishment candidates, the public loses out and so does our democracy. The upshot of the Greene debacle is that both political parties are going to screen potential candidates before allowing them to appear in primary elections. Hopefully, a few voters will actually research candidates in advance before pulling the lever on Election Day. And even the most confident candidates are going to make sure that they don’t take their opponents for granted. If any of the above occur in South Carolina, Alvin Greene and his supporters may have unwittingly done this state some good.
Help keep the City Paper free.
No paywalls.
No subscription cost.
Free delivery at 800 locations.
Help support independent journalism by donating today.