Mr. Brown, You've Got A Lovely Daughter.
It'd be easy to write quite a bit on Scott Brown's shocking victory last night, taking the Henry Cabot Lodge seat in Massachusetts. (As I write this, many precincts in Boston have yet to come in. Why is it in so many elections, the big cities come in last--you'd think they'd come in first.) No doubt the internet will be filled with a library's worth of analysis, so maybe I should sit back and let things play out. Just a few observations, then:
First, enjoy it while you can, Senator Brown. It's all downhill from here.
I admit I was caught as flatfooted as Martha Coakley. A week ago I still didn't think Brown had a chance. It just seemed in the DNA of Massachusetts to vote Democrat. I mean this is the one state that went for McGovern.
Many are blaming Coakley for blowing it. Perhaps with a better campaign she could have won. But the point is it shouldn't have been close, and that's not her fault. She's been a popular, successful candidate in the past, and if her party weren't in trouble, she'd have won by 20 points.
Coakley tried to tie Brown to Bush and Cheney. If that won't play in Mass., maybe it's time for the Dems to retire the strategy.
It's one year exactly since President Obama took office. I wonder if he thought things would be like this. I also wonder if candidates will be so thrilled to have him campaign for them now.
There's still a long way to November, but until the polls change, it would seem that any Dem who's not ahead by more than 10 points should start sweating.
For the first time, I have serious doubts that a health care bill will pass. Over the last few days, Obama and Pelosi have been talking tough, but what else could they do? The State Of The Union is scheduled for next week, and I'm sure their plan was to ram it through in time so the President could announce this great accomplishment, then start talking about something/anything else. Brown, of course, takes away the Dems' filibuster-proof majority, but there are plenty of strategies at this point that don't require 60 votes in the Senate. But that doesn't matter if the Dems, as a party, are freaked out. As they should be.
I saw progressives on TV saying the clear lesson here is the Dems need to be more liberal. They never learn.
But here's the real question. Will this election revive Ayla's recording career?
PS It's times like this that I think of my old, very conservative friend John. He would have loved this. I remember he came to visit me after the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994 and it was all he could talk about for days.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:11 AM
9 Comments:
I'll believe it's a referendum when it reaches the People's Republic of Vermont. Still, last night was very encouraging.
The best thing for either political party right now is for the other one to be in power
Frankly, though i am happy with the result, I think this election proves once again that American elections are more akin to American Idol than the ideal of Athenian Democracy. And this may be for the best, given that our system is tempered by a republican (representative) form of government.
I believe Brown mostly because the people 52% of the people of Mass are dissatisfied first with the economy, and second with the general performance of the Democrats for the last year. Obama won for the same reason (reversed) a little more than a year ago. Reagan beat Carter not because an epiphany among the American public that supply-side economics made more sense than Keynsian economics. The vast majority of Americans couldn't (can't) identify the meaning of those terms, and voted primarily on their feeling that Carter had not performed well (based on their own economic situations and a woeful international situation (everyone understands hostages).
But again, this isn;t necessarily bad. The American vote may be something like a popularity contest, but it is based on performance - so our representatives should realize the best way to win re-election is to perform well (we'll leave the details to them, but results are all that matters in the final analysis).
It's a worthwhile question to ask what is the best reason for people to vote in a democracy. Should they vote based on what they think is best for them, or what they think is best for the country (or state, or city)? They have imperfect knowledge, but they know a lot more about what they need than what everyone else needs. If everyone votes "selfishly," mightn't it add up to everyone voting for what's best for the nation? (Perhaps the bigger problem is short-term versus long-term thinking, but I'm not sure anyone's that good at long-term thinking, even if they can afford it.)
Maybe there's a bit of Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" happening here. Maybe, in selfishly voting for what's best for ourselves, we're somehow also supporting what's best for others.
Scott Brown will likely be enough of a RINO to tick off many of today's cheering pundits. I am happy that he put healthcare govt takedown at about a 20% shot of happening. I think he will a. support Obama's next SCOTUS nominee, b. ultimately support at least one major bill that repubs will hate, and c. get reelected for those very reasons.
AAGuy
There used to be liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. It'd be nice to see their return.
It will be a great day when all of the elected officials are INOs and throw off the tyranny of party purity.
It would be interesting whether great or not if all the polis became INOs. I don't know how we could judge them before an election. The original point of a party was to have a core set of beliefs to which members ascribe. SO if everybody was independent, I suppose that we could have each politicians who hold lay out their own "party platforms" and the voters evaluate them. This would be fine, I guess. I think it would be probably still lead to factions and alot of the same compromises that currently occur. I also think it would be less clear to the voter where people stand.
Post a Comment
<< Home