Let the Finger Pointing Begin

OK—I am a little blue spot in the candy apple red sea conservative environment which is my place of employment. When people on campus who know my political leanings tell me that they hope that “God will have mercy on my soul,” I find the doctrine of eternal security comforting, assuring them that He has, and move on. My ideological leanings (political not doctrinal) however often force me to become an apologist for all things in blue in the area of politics. Its dirty work at times but hey, it was religious people who often were responsible for persecuting prophets.

That said, the news of Scott Brown upset victory in the Massachusetts special election for U.S. Senate has had many people coming to me asking questions like “what happened to the Democrats?”or “is this election of historic significance?” Most come, it seems, not simply as neutral seekers of information. There is a bit of “we gotcha” gleam in their eyes which seems to reflect the obviously giddy affect and comments of the anchors of FOX and Friends. The second question is easy to answer—we will wait and see. The nature of historic significance will depend on the results of the election on policy. Brown is not the first Republican to be a senator from Massachusetts even if there has not been one since 1972 (by contrast, Obama’s election which was historic as the first African-American President). The first question, however, is more difficult to answer—what did happen to the Democrats in an election that should have been (and up until a few weeks ago looked like) an easy victory for the party.

Obviously Brown’s victory will cause a great deal of soul-searching, and dare I say finger pointing, among Democrats. It should—only 12% of Massachusetts voters are registered Republicans while almost 38% percent are Democrats. This means that slightly more than 50% of voters in the state see themselves as independents and most of those tend to lean left. This should have been an easy election for the Democrats to win. Already it has been noted that Democratic challenger, State Attorney General Martha Coakley ran a terrible campaign that will probably become textbook of what NOT to do if you are a candidate. While I think there is some merit to that criticism, it is certainly not enough to explain the appeal that Brown had to win over a large number of independents and some cross over Democrats in an election where voter turnout was heavy.

Let me offer some of my reasons why Brown won. The biggest reason, in my humble opinion, is the performance of Harry Reid as Senate majority leader. The voters of Massachusetts were the first to react to the brokering that Reid has done to try and win support for a health care bill in the Senate. The most blatant and most publicized instance is the extortion deal cut by Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson to get 100% federal funding of Medicare for his state. Nelson’s whoring of his vote in tight negotiations in the Senate found a willing “trick” in Reid. Please note, the amount of money here is relatively small and the provision would not have taken effect until 2016, plenty of time for Congress to repeal any promises made to Nelson, but the political fallout is immeasurable. Just a few weeks ago California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a supporter of health care reform, asked California’s congressional delegation to stop supporting reform unless they could get a “sweetheart deal” like Nebraska’s. Nelson’s ploy, and Reid acquiesce is, of course, political unsustainable—and the sausage making tactics of the majority leader has created a bill that is easy to allow its opponents to divide and conquer. Please note that 80% of Massachusetts voters support the state’s universal health care coverage program. I believe that many voters were not voting against health care reform as much as the way the process has gone forward, particularly in the Senate.

I also don’t discount that for most people unemployment and job creation is THE issue. Nationally unemployment is around 10% while it remains at about 8% in Massachusetts. People are, understandable, nervous and angry at the state of the economy and inpatient at the rate of recovery. The whys of failure and prognosis for the future make great debate but it is the current situation that fuels voters and so there is a “throw the bums out” mentality that manifested itself in the Brown election. As FOX noted, the results show that “any Democrat can lose anywhere to any Republican.” I will grant this but GOP members in Congress should also take note that they may well be one of the “bums” that voters may want to throw out in November. In recent years the GOP’s reputation as being innovative and having progressive ideas that benefit average Americans has been shaky at best. While spewing the standard litany of tax cuts and riding the anger of social conservatives many independent voters continue to see the Republicans as the party that will simply “just say no.”

To return to the question of the historic nature of the Brown election I will say that the election will be historic if it moves both parties toward the middle ideologically and spurs a sense of compromise and seeking to promote the common good of all Americans. If it doesn't, if Brown's election simply gives the Republicans the ability fo filbuster and block legislation in the Senate it is not historic (unless you want to claim that maintianing the staus quo constitutes a historic move). Given the state of politics in Washington, where the financial backing of wealthy interests is critical to gaining or holding office, the prospects of historic are slim. Yet, as the two parties continue to become more ideologically polarized it is the growing number of moderate independent voters who will make or break candidate electoral fortunes—in blue Massachusetts or the reddest districts in the South. In the end, votes will triumph over dollars and representatives will work more actively for their whole constituency and simply special interests donors if they want to continue to serve in office. Well, that is the hope we maintain in a representative democracy.