Implications of the Massachusetts Election
Tonight, Republican Scott Brown has won the senate seat formerly held by the late Edward Kennedy. It is the first time in a very long time that that seat will be occupied by a Republican, or by a non-Kennedy. It is also a very important development because of the staunch left-of-center character of Massachusetts. For that reason alone, this election should be seen as a clear message to the Congressional Democratic leadership that likely voters (which is a very different group from the general populace) are souring on their plans as well as their style of leadership. 62% of the Massachusetts vote went to Obama, and now, in the very next federal election, the tables have turned in unequivocal fashion.
Given Brown’s apparent emphasis during the campaign on the healthcare issue, his election from one of the first states to enact universal health coverage underscores the disillusionment with the proposals the Democrats have been offering. His association with the tea party movement, emphasis on his independence, and talk of “the machine” and “the people’s seat” also show the first clear indication that the tea parties and the general ideological and philosophical vibe they represent have the stuff from which electoral victories are made. And that is terrible news for the Democrats. It looks like those angry senior citizens at town hall meetings aren’t so inconsequential after all, Ms. Pelosi.
The liberals like to cite polls showing huge numbers of Americans want “healthcare reform,” without caring to discern what kind of reform it is they want. Confident they had a mandate after the November 2008 elections, the Democrats in D.C. have blundered their way through 2009, plowing ahead on healthcare and the “stimulus” in amateurish fashion, and now the electorate has begun to show it’s payback time.
In my humble opinion, the sheer incompetence of the Democrats in straightforward issues of governance and fiscal management is alone justification to give them a black eye this year. Despite this clear signal from the bluest of blue states, I fear that it will take a lot more Republican victories to convince the likes of Pelosi, Reid and Obama that before anything, the job of government is to govern effectively—regardless of its priorities or policy program—and not to manage an endless network of bureaucrats, unions and special interests that view the Treasury as an ATM.
Left-liberal sour grapes has already begun:
If this was about health care, even though they get coverage in their commonwealth, the people of the Bay State will have sided with insurance companies and drug manufacturers over the the tens of millions of uninsured Americans, as well as the tens of millions more suffering from increased premiums and decreased coverage.
Etcetera, etcetera. The blind partisan progressives who judge a man by his carbon footprint have, disappointingly, consistently failed to come to grips with the fact that, as fantastic and beautiful their vision for the country may be, it is all for squat if their team just can’t run the country well. Then again, this is probably the permanent condition of partisans and ideologues (think of the Bush Republicans and their base). Obama himself is the perfect example of this: long on sizzle, but short on steak. In their euphoria, the Republicans and conservatives would be well advised to remember this lesson.
Only a fool would think that the Bay State has suddenly had rightist awakening. This isn’t about politics anywhere near as much as it’s about governance. Accordingly, anybody who is interested in retaking Congress or the White House should look to competent technocrats. If that means saying “thanks, but no thanks” to an Obama or a Palin, no matter how sexy they may seem, then so be it. This country needs leaders who can accomplish something, independent of whatever policy program, and the electorate may be starting to realize that.
MORE ARTICLES:
I really don’t think it says much, as it is hard to get people out to vote on midterm elections, most will go out on presidentual years elections no matter hte weather. Also it is hard to convince older people that their vote matters, and that is where the Democrats lost votes there. And Republicans really worked hard to get out the vote. It will be interesting to see how many votes were taken for both candidates and compare it to the last presidentual election totals.
Martha Coakley may have given up to early last night, as one of the Boston Papers has her winning the election in the count at Midnight last night.
http://thephoenix.com/BLOGS/talkingpolitics/archive/2010/01/19/boston-globe-calls-election-for-martha-coakley.aspx
I think this says three things:
1. Democrats CAN’T take any seat for granted, not anymore. Political dynasties – particularly in the Senate – are all now objects of attack, and if Democrats want to retain seats, they need to make sure they have engaging candidates who run tight, well focused races. My sens eis that Mass. democrats didn’t do this.
2. The governance issue is NOT about running the country, so much as it is running the respective organizations. Take the healthcre reform bill for instance. Say what you will about Speaker Pelosi, but she delivered a democratic majority on a bill that has many of the things Democrats and Progressives want. Mr. Reid, both by dint of senate structure and his own personality, can’t actually get Democrats to vote as a majority block without giving away the store to make the Blue Dogs happy. Having to do that means that he doesn’t, in fact, have a Democratic Majority in the Senate – yet his strategy and the WH strategy doesn’t reflect this.
3. the President has to get back to bein gth einspiring leader he was on the stump. He needs ot generate energy, and he needs to slap around – publicly – those in the Democratic Party who are in the way. When he doesn’t, voters will turn to those who do.
Charles, I think that although fewer people vote in the midterm elections, they do often give an indication of the shifting enthusiasm and interest on the part of the electorate (as when the Republicans lost the House majority under Bush), esp when it’s a staunch blue state going for the Republican.
And Philip, while it’s true that Pelosi got the bill, it was just by a few votes and only after the pro-life Dems got their way. I watched the process live on C-SPAN, it was quite a thing to see. I think the larger context (esp. considering the haphazard way the stimulus was handled) indicates that this Democratic leadership can’t compare to previous ones. And I agree on the Obama issue.
A key difference between the two chambers, however, is that if the Dems in the House don’t ultimately do what speaker Pelosi wants, she can take thme out of their committee chairs, etc. Reid can’t. Pelosi has both carrots and sticks – Reid looks at carrots and sticks from behind bullet-proof glass.