The real issue isn’t one candidate. It’s the system that produced him.
As Knox County Republicans, we are having an uncomfortable conversation.
After Justin Cofer won the Republican primary for Knox County Commissioner, information from his past became the subject of public debate. Some Republicans now argue the party should distance itself from its own nominee. Others believe voters should decide his fate in November.
Reasonable people can disagree.
But I think we’re asking the wrong question.
The better question is this: Why are we learning important things about major candidates after the primary instead of before it?
That isn’t really a Justin Cofer problem. It is a structural problem.
Over the years I’ve become convinced that structural solutions usually work better than simply telling people to “try harder.”
Take my AirPods. I used to leave them in my pants pocket and occasionally send them through the washing machine. The solution wasn’t to scold myself every laundry day. I bought a waterproof protective case. The problem largely disappeared.
I had a similar problem with my wallet. I would set it down somewhere, forget where I left it, and spend the next hour searching the house. Eventually I bought a magnetic wallet that attaches to the back of my phone. Since my phone is almost always with me, my wallet is too.
Neither solution made me a more disciplined person. They changed the structure. Good structures reduce predictable mistakes.
Politics should work the same way.
For most of American history, political parties were more than labels on a ballot. They actively recruited candidates, encouraged promising people to run, evaluated potential weaknesses, developed future leaders, and helped prepare them for public office. Voters still made the final decision, but they generally chose from candidates who had already been through some level of review.
Today’s primary system works very differently.
Almost anyone can qualify for the ballot. Campaigns often begin before anyone has seriously examined whether a candidate is prepared for the office or carries vulnerabilities that could become public later. Then, after the primary is over, everyone acts surprised when problems emerge.
We treat each episode as an isolated event.
It isn’t.
It is a predictable outcome of the structure we created.
I’ve written before that primaries didn’t eliminate political parties. They separated the party jersey from the party team.
The jersey still exists. Candidates still run with an “R” or a “D” beside their names. But much of the organizational work that parties once performed has largely disappeared. We kept the brand while dismantling much of the process behind it.
When difficulties arise, we blame the candidate.
Sometimes that’s appropriate.
But repeatedly blaming individuals without examining the system that produced them is like replacing another pair of ruined AirPods instead of buying the waterproof case.
I’m not arguing that we should abandon elections or take decisions away from voters. Quite the opposite. Voters deserve better choices, not fewer choices.
Perhaps it’s time to think seriously about rebuilding a process that recruits, evaluates, prepares, and develops candidates before they become nominees. Not as a purity test. Not as an insider’s club. Simply as a way to strengthen the quality of the people asking for the public’s trust.
Whether Justin Cofer ultimately wins or loses isn’t the larger story.
The larger story is whether Knox County Republicans—and perhaps political parties across America—will continue having the same conversation every election cycle, or finally begin asking whether the structure itself needs to change.
Sometimes the smartest solution isn’t finding better people.
Sometimes it’s building a better system.
AI Disclaimer: Written with a little help from AI and a lot of help from coffee.
