In choosing someone to represent Maine in the U.S. Senate, I look for a candidate who can lead our nation toward fulfilling its historical promise, what our country’s ideally supposed to be. Not by championing the status quo of the left or that of the right side of the aisle, but someone dissatisfied with the collusion of both in ultimately serving an establishment status quo that systematically favors the already advantaged. Someone incapable of continuing any further support of a disappointing two-party Mexican standoff still successfully marginalizing a truly competitive third-party pursuit of fundamental progressive change.

Despite all posturing to the contrary, those in governance seem totally comfortable with continuing on just continuing on. In the meantime, the haves have more, more and more obscenely more, while the have-nots fall farther behind. All well and good for those comfortably heeled or still believing they have a possible long shot at eventual personal embetterment.

America’s always branded itself as best in achieving an exceptionalism in life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and justice for all within an iconic melting pot. However, the cost of that patriotic pledge has never been fully paid by a capitalism that’s remained mostly an anti-democratic “Me” rather than an egalitarian “Us.” At best it’s an economic system of “We” vs. “Them.”

Each election cycle both major parties talk the talk of bringing about greatness, or at least a new foothold towards it. Yet, each term that follows accomplishes little more than pragmatically positioning incumbents towards reelection. America’s two-party “swamp,” so clearly incapable of any actual cathartic change, nevertheless manages to somehow convince a participatory challenged electorate that they can continue putting their finger in the fire of an intractable partisanship and not be repeatedly burned.

Americans have just two Independent U.S. senators. Vermont’s progressive version nevertheless ran as a presidential candidate on the Democratic ticket. Maine’s moderate version has always caucused with the Democrats, essentially voting that party line. His support from within the Democratic party is so established that he’s its de facto candidate, relegating the party’s actual Senate contender to essentially a grassroots independent challenge against him.

The Democrat establishment apparently believes its own candidate’s a poor bet in defeating the Republicans, who display a kindred defeatist frugality given Eric Brakey’s similarly modest war chest. Angus King’s reelection has essentially already been anointed by the real powers that be, namely “big money” in the millions vs. his opponents’ thousands.

Whenever I hear Angus King speak on the floor of the Senate he appears passionately engaged, a model of statesmanship, but at the same time he always comes across as playing it safe, of pulling some punch that would clearly display heroic leadership inspiring actual change.

On those occasions he reminds me of the character in the classic Frank Capra film “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” though not the title role played by Jimmy Stewart. He rather brings to mind the persona of Sen. Joseph Paine, consummately played by Claude Rains. Rains portrays a basically good man caught up in the corruption he’s bought into in acquiring the public esteem to which he’s become so accustomed. He’s everyone’s admired idea of what the appearance of genteel leadership should look like.

Angus King’s own character has always struck me as undoubtedly and altogether proper and sincere. He’s no Senator Paine. King’s always genuine in earnestly attempting to do the very best he can in making Mainers proud to have him as their advocate. He enjoys that ever rare and, especially these days, almost forgotten skill set of being truly charming.

Zak Ringlestein, the Democrat challenge to King, of course reminds me of Jefferson Smith, the naive and idealistic protagonist that seemingly has no chance in going up against the established order. In Capra’s escapist drama, Sen. Smith’s underdog triumphantly perseveres and Sen. Paine painfully heeds the better angels of his nature. No wonder so many inside the Beltway view Hollywood as a threat. Given all the talk of making America great again, maybe a good start would be to revive a Capraesque consciousness within our politics.

Dumbfounded Democrats wonder how any Republican can still support LePage or Trump. “They” can because partisanship justifies anything, whether a Tea Party perception of what’s right or a Resistance takeover of the left which equally has zero problems rationalizing its own tactics. And so it goes. Nothing really changes except for which lesser evil is in office while a greater evil lets us believe we’re still a functioning autonomous democracy.

Defense corporations and Wall St. love Angus King. Even those personally sharing Zak Ringelstein’s views on progressive democratic socialism and condemnation of “big money” influence on our politics unhesitatingly rally to reelect Sen. King.

The difference between Sen. King and Sen. Paine is that our incumbent senator really believes that serving the powerful elite is the right thing to do. No corruption, just like-mindedness.

The difference between Zak Ringlestein and Angus King is that the grassroots independent Democratic candidate’s campaign mantras are “Get Money Out of Politics” and “For the People not Billionaires and Lobbyists.”

Gary Anderson lives in Bath.