First of all, Congratulations to Scott Brown. I mean that. Having run for office myself (office, not public office), it’s no easy task. It’s hard. It’s fun. It’s grueling. And at least part of it is that you hope you end up with as few people hating you as possible.
Scott Brown won, and Scott Brown deserves to be congratulated for that.
That said, I’m not so sure the People of Massachusetts will be happy with the result, whether now or somewhat soon. The one and only caveat to that statement depends on whether Senator-Elect Scott Brown changes the color of his leaf . . or color of his stripes . . or whatever visual you want to use.
The simple fact of the matter is Scott Brown is largely inconsistent with the wishes and desires of a majority of the People of Massachusetts. As much as anyone reading this may agree or disagree, Massachusetts is one of the few states (Commonwealth actually) where Gay Marriage is legal. Massachusetts is one of the few states with a mandatory health insurance requirement that rides along with a, roughly speaking, public option for those who can’t afford full-priced insurance. Massachusetts is decidedly Pro-Choice on the matter of Abortion. The People of Massachusetts don’t believe in the Death Penalty . . and soundly reaffirmed that belief as recently as 2007. And Senator-Elect Scott Brown is incompatible with all those positions.
I’m simply making a point of consistency.
Keep in mind, while he wasn’t my choice, I by no means mean to bash Scott Brown — It’s just that his trajectory doesn’t fit that of the People of Massachusetts.
Scott Brown may have done an exceedingly good job convincing a majority of Tuesday’s voters that he was an independent, truck driving, guy just like you. But the bigger question is whether Senator-Elect Scott Brown will actually represent the People of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts once he arrives in Washington, DC as a full-fledged Senator.
He’s won the right to prove himself, of that there is no doubt. But my suspicion is that ‘track record’ means everything when you have something to look back on. Scott Brown has been a reliably-voting Republican, and just as colleges look to high school performance to gauge college potential, I find it unlikely that Senator Scott Brown will pivot much toward representing the majority beliefs of the People of Massachusetts.
Again, Congratulations. I just think it’s going to be tough road, that is unless Senator Scott Brown actually proves his value through his deeds as Senator.
As for a tongue-in-cheek review / assessment of the Special Election in Massachusetts . . .
- This is what happens when one candidate runs the best, most effective campaign they could have ever hoped for . . . and the other candidate runs the worst. Quite frankly, it was like one candidate saved a truckload of puppies and the other was caught picking their nose in their high school yearbook photo.
- This is what happens when a candidate does such just a great job at marketing that it convinces people to vote for them for reasons like they drive a truck as opposed to (or in addition to) actual / concrete positions. On this point, I have to call Scott Brown out on the carpet — His issues page on his website read like a 5th grader’s book report.
- This is what happens when a race, an opponent, an opponent’s party . . . and voters . . . are all taken for granted (and not by the opponent).
- This is what happens when one candidate invites the President of the United States to their city, prompting a half-mile of 1,000’s of supporters to stand in line for hours . . . and not hand out a single sign.
- This is what happens when a candidate and a party don’t fight.
- This is what happens when you don’t define your opponent (and let your opponent do it for themself).
- This is what happens when you let your opponent define you.
Thanks for your comment on FrumForum. Andrew Sullivan has pointed out that Scott Brown appealed to voters’ desire to keep the things they already had–Medicare and the Massachusetts health plan. By portraying those things as at risk under Obama’s plan, he got them to vote in a direction that would undermine the rest of the country’s efforts to enact real reform.
I’m not a Republican and can’t call myself a conservative–at least not by today’s standards, though I could ~30 years ago–but I contacted David Frum in the belief that, even though we disagree, he’s willing to have a discussion, and I’ve been right about that.
First of all, very much appreciate your taking the time to offer substantive discussion. Any chance you can highlight a particularly helpful link on what Andrew Sullivan articulated on the Massachusetts Senate race?
Beyond that, I’ll try to keep some additional points as succinct as possible (and fail utterly).
Here in Massachusetts there were NO ads in the recent Special Election between Scott Brown and Martha Coakley stressing the value of the Massachusetts healthcare plan, nor that Massachusetts was at risk of loosing it vis-a-vis Healthcare Reform writ large at the national level. That is something I can attest to. I do agree — fairly or not — that a lot of people have been made more broadly afraid of what they’ll supposedly loose, particularly the Elderly and the fear that’s been perpetuated with respect to Medicare. That message did appear in the Brown vs. Coakley race in Massachusetts, but it appeared with only the gusto of the national version of the same argument . . and it wasn’t much of a deciding factor in the race or the election result. (Everyone said ‘Economy’.)
If you’re from Massachusetts it would be interesting to hear whether you agree with the above.
Back to Healthcare Reform, I for one can say that if anyone were to even try to ‘pull the plug’ on my or anyone else’s Grandma (or my Father or my Mother now that they’re old enough) that they’d have to go through me first . . . and a lot of other, angry Americans, too.
But somehow the fabric of THAT reality — that we’d all defend Grandma tooth-and-nail — has been lost while we leave it to the current system and health insurance companies to do it more insidiously and subtlety . . each and every day. And it’s that and other misguided arguments that seem to have stymied progress on a problem we would both seem to agree needs solving.
You’re more than welcome to continue the discussion here on LittleDEM if you’d like.
I’m not from Massachusetts.
Two good posts (there were many more) from Sullivan:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/01/scott-browns-mindless-oped.html
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/01/how-popular-are-entitlements.html (which largely quotes another site)
The most striking observation from this post is:
“[H]ow has Brown been able to rally opposition to the health care bill? By complaining that it would lead to Medicare cuts and interfere with Massachusetts’ system. In other words, he has based his candidacy around defending old entitlements against new ones.”
Along those lines, a conservative I know has complained for months about how health care reform will be a disaster because “now the government’s going to tell me how to live my life.” For all his fear of future government takeovers of health insurance, he’s already covered by Medicare.
It’s another example of how the right is angry and completely incoherent all at once.