If Clean Elections Create Polarization, Maybe Polarization is Good!

Matt Yglesias has a new post out today discussing the apparent fact that Arizona's clean elections law has resulted in more extreme candidates winning elections. He's skeptical that this is really a general phenomenon. I'm skeptical that the explanation the political scientists he quotes give, which makes it seem like the whole fundraising process is good because it protects us from "extreme" candidates, is accurate. It seems more likely to me that there's a fairly consistent Money Agenda, and that if you require candidates to do private fundraising they will overwhelmingly need to cater to that Money Agenda. Take that impetus away, and more of the actual disagreements in society can surface. That's a good thing, isn't it? At the very least it's a democratic thing.