Editorial: Contested races are the tonic for good civic health

Longtime readers of the Ledger-Enquirer are probably aware of our long-standing support for U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga. We have endorsed him repeatedly, praised him frequently and criticized him but rarely. He is a public servant of effectiveness and integrity.

Georgia needs somebody to run against him.

Does that mean he has worn out his welcome as a voice for his state and country in the federal legislative branch's Upper Chamber? Absolutely not; nor does it suggest that he has any less of our support this year, or is less likely to get our endorsement next year, than in the past.

But as of now, Georgia's senior U.S. senator is unopposed -- both from with his own party, which isn't surprising (why would the GOP consider intraparty opposition to one of its stalwarts?) -- and from the Democrats, which is unfortunate. It's unfortunate less for the party than for the voters of Georgia.

We understand the political and practical realities. Running a political race, especially for an office of the importance of the United States Senate, is incredibly expensive. It's grueling and time-consuming and humbling, sometimes humiliating. In a firmly "Red" state like Georgia, some consider it futile.

But a genuinely contested race, with a healthy, substantive, issue-centered debate, is in the best interests of the state. In the largest sense, it's in the interest of the senator himself. Nothing hones one's senses of principle and purpose like having those things publicly challenged.

The thinking of most observers in the state, according to a McClatchy political analysis, is that the strongest potential Democratic contenders think the time is not yet right, and are perhaps waiting to run for a future open seat rather than challenge a strong incumbent.

Even in an open race, McClatchy notes, Democrats might be deterred by Michelle Nunn's 2014 defeat. Jennifer Duffy, senior editor at the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, told McClatchy that Nunn "was a strong candidate. She was a good fundraiser. She was a good campaigner."

But that might be an implicit overestimation of Nunn's strategy. Yes, she had name recognition, thanks to the distinguished Senate career of her famous father. But Nunn, as Red State Democrats so often do (seldom successfully), ran less as a Democratic moderate than as Republican Lite. Voters want clear choices, not politically bland alternatives.

They deserve a real choice in the 2016 Senate race as well. Yes, Isakson's $5.3 million campaign chest is an intimidating obstacle, especially given the likelihood that the national Democratic Party will put most of its money into what it considers the most winnable races. (Democrats need just a five-seat gain to win a Senate majority.)

Still, somebody needs to make this race competitive -- intellectually and ideologically, if not financially. Even the best elected officials should have to earn a new contract.

This story was originally published December 15, 2015 at 5:16 PM with the headline "Editorial: Contested races are the tonic for good civic health."