To answer
this question, it's important to understand through whose lens we are judging incumbency and at
what level of office the incumbent currently holds. For the sake of this answer let's assume
that the incumbent is someone high-profile (i.e. a US senator).
From the
incumbent's perspective, the primary advantage is the incredible amount of free publicity that
comes with being the incumbent. You are already a part of the political machine and, depending
on your station within the senate, you have the ability to hit the CNN/MSNBC/etc. talking head
circuit to discuss either your policy views and your intentions for office, current and
futureor, cynically, whatever will get people to vote for you in the next election. A secondary
advantage of incumbency is that if you've made friends as a senator you get, more or less, free
support from other people who share your public reach.
Conversely, and
perhaps ironically, the aforementioned advantage can simultaneously be the primary disadvantage
of incumbency. Because of your visibility, everything you do and say is under a microscope. All
your previous votes, snippets from speeches, appearances, etc. are potential fodder for
opponents and a 24-hour news cycle that feasts on controversy. In addition, if you haven't made
friends in office (or you just so happen to be a weak candidate), your fellow congress-people
will not hesitate to fan the flames of discontent of your stint in office.
In
conclusion, the advantages and disadvantages of incumbency are, while well-documented,
functionally immaterial. Incumbents rarely lose (see reference) primarily due to the
never-ending fundraising they do while in office (thus come out of the gate with a massive
financial advantage over opponents).
No comments:
Post a Comment