American politics have never been serene, nor without sharp elbows, hyperbole, and even plenty of literal bloodshed. If anything, it’s relatively calm these days. Say what you want about the Obama-Trump Era, but Joe Biden never assassinated a political rival in a duel.

Yes, it does get worse than Trump tweets.

Nevada politics is no different, nor would I want it to be. I don’t like it when politicians are jerks to each other, but I really start to get suspicious when there’s a little too much kumbaya. “Bipartisanship” is too often code for, “I won’t complain about your excesses if you don’t complain about mine.” My objection comes when the tribalism and combat serve to cover up incompetence in the policy part of our politics, and infect our broader culture with a need to hate a political “enemy.”

Which brings me to the series of GOP backed recalls against three state senators.

I disagree wholeheartedly with my boss* and editor (and others) that recall efforts are “subversion of democracy,” or an “abuse” of process. Recalls are part of the process, and are, if anything, too democratic (in the classical sense of that word). Most western democracies in parliamentary systems regularly see “snap elections” whenever political winds may be shifting. Our recall process is the faintest shadow of that sort of chaos, and has the further legitimacy that comes of being initiated by a popular petition drive and a vote of the people, rather than by a Prime Minister hoping to consolidate his or her power.

It’s hard to argue “the will of the voters” and then say those same voters shouldn’t be given an opportunity to change their mind if they don’t like what they see in Carson City. Where is it written that recalls “should” only be for some “special” malfeasance? If they don’t think the current officeholder is delivering the desired results, why stick with them if there’s potentially a better alternative?

But just because there is nothing particularly amoral or insidious about recalls in general doesn’t mean they’re a good idea tactically.

First, it intrudes upon regular people’s lives in an unpleasant way. Show of hands – who loves seeing gardens of campaign signs sprout in every vacant lot, and can’t wait for the next stack of vapid campaign mailers to be stuffed in their mailbox? Who wants more dinners or toddler naps interrupted by paid political solicitors? Who wants to pay more tax dollars for special elections?

Don’t get me wrong – I’m glad we live in a country where we settle our political differences this way instead of with machetes. But if we have to do it more often than every two years, you’d better have some real, across-the-board public support for an immediate change.

Second, if you’re going to shoot a king, you’d better kill him, or you’ll only make him stronger. Successful recall efforts are vanishingly rare, and there’s no particular reason to think this one will break the streak. If your reason for a recall drive is that “The People” are aghast at the incumbent’s agenda, but “The People” effectively ratify that same agenda by declining to vote for a recall… Well.

Third, it just looks pointless and vindictive. Take the attempt to recall nonpartisan Sen. Patricia Farley, who isn’t even running again. Unless a special session is called, she will never cast another vote in Carson City. She left the Republican Party, but while she caucused with Democrats (because you have to caucus with somebody if you want a voice in policy-making), she pointedly never became a Democrat, either - echoing the dissatisfaction more and more Nevadans have with both major parties. By “punishing” her for not staying the tribe, Republicans are signaling just how out of touch they are with a population souring on the entire partisan process. Ditto for Dems, who declined to support her without the right party label. (A loss of Farley’s and other independent voices will prove, I think, a loss for both the state in general and for both parties in desperate need of humility and moderation.)

Finally, it looks like what it is – a deliberate distraction from governing failures. Senator Farley dismissed the Republicans leading the recall as having no “substantive policy agenda,” but I disagree with that. They had a substantive agenda in 2015, and one that they had every right to be proud of: more money for education via a broader tax base while also addressing structural problems (undue union interference, lack of choice, etc.) that no tax increase could otherwise fix.

The problem is that they didn’t know how to effectively tout or defend that agenda going forward. If Governor Sandoval had been truly committed to keeping ESAs in the budget, they would have stayed in the budget in 2017 (or better yet, he would have called a special session to address the funding mechanism the Supreme Court had said didn’t pass constitutional muster, back when Republicans still enjoyed electoral majorities). Even while still in the majority, they backslid on important measures such as prevailing wage reform which makes schools significantly more expensive to build. And then they lost all credibility as wise or independent fiscal stewards in the high-profile special session vote for the Raiders stadium.

Had they kept up their policy fight two years ago, they wouldn’t have to attempt this Hail Mary political fight now.

The only thing the GOP has going for it in this recall effort is the hyperbolic and dishonest Democratic response to it, which frankly reveals that Democrats are just as happy with tribal partisan combat and distractions from their own policy failures. If they were smart (or felt secure in their standing with a righteously cynical voting public), instead of a panicked “Decline to Sign” campaign, they’d steer into the skid, welcoming the debate about what their incumbents had accomplished. Instead, their breathless pearl-clutching will give life to the GOP operatives otherwise foolish enough to think this is a good use of the time or money of political donors.

Oh, well. That’s unsubverted democracy for you. And hey – it still beats dueling.

* For the record, anyone who says Jon Ralston is attempting to “slant” coverage of these or other topics via the Independent staff like some sort of Machiavellian puppet-master is either stupid or a liar.

Orrin Johnson has been writing and commenting on Nevada and national politics since 2007. He started with an independent blog, First Principles, and was a regular columnist for the Reno Gazette-Journal from 2015-2016. By day, he is a deputy district attorney for Carson City. His opinions here are his own. Follow him on Twitter @orrinjohnson, or contact him at [email protected].