Dead Armadillos: Why Massachusetts Went Brown
Let’s be clear about one thing: Tuesday’s vote was not a referendum on the Obama Presidency, nor was it a referendum on healthcare reform–at least in the idea that Bay State voters completely repudiated an Obama push for reform. Scott Brown’s come-from-behind win was from a combination of factors.
Massachusetts voters already have universal healthcare. In 2006, then-governor Mitt Romney and the Democratic legislature mandated healthcare reform at the state level. We could have an endless debate as to the merits of a mandate, but for most Massachusetts voters, healthcare reform legislation as passed by the U.S. Senate on December 26 is a step down from the outstanding level of coverage that Bay State residents receive. In this regard, Tuesday’s vote was a referendum on healthcare.
Martha Coakley lost Massachusetts because she was a lackluster candidate who believed in the idea of Clintonesque inevitability. Because of a combination of two factors relating to Obama voters in Massachusetts–those who turned out and voted for Brown (18%), and those who stayed home, Scott Brown’s pickup truck crossed the finish line.
This is not to diminish Scott Brown’s transformational candidacy–the Wrentham lawyer is an exceptional candidate able to mask his extremist views championed by so-called “tea party protesters” largely because the media did not pay attention to Brown until he had begun to chip away at Coakley’s lead. Coupled with ability to tap into populist anger, Brown was a lethal force in the bluest of the blue states.
Barack Obama’s base voters simply didn’t turn out–and nearly 20% of those voters who did turn out voted for Brown. In exit polling conducted by Research 2000, independents and Democrats who voted for Barack Obama overwhelmingly support approaches considered to be “more liberal” like the so-called government administered “public option” 0r expansion of medicare. Independents and Democrats oppose the current healthcare reform bill because it doesn’t go far enough. This polling is consistent with President Obama’s assertion that voters are frustrated with the “pace of change.”
Jim Hightower famously said that “There’s nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos.” He’s right. The White House’s continued courting of Olympia Snowe and infatuation with the political necessity of bipartisanship as opposed to politically risky parliamentary tactics like reconciliation, in the end, destroyed any hopes of reform with 60 votes. Let’s be real–had President Obama and Congressional Democrats gone forward with reconciliation on a so-called “public option,” we may have seen a very different result in Massachusetts.
Voters hate inevitability, and Martha Coakley (and everyone else) greatly misunderstood the electorate. Voters want a compelling reason to vote. For the Obama voters who cast ballots for Scott Brown, I’m not suggesting each actually thought that a vote for Scott Brown would force reconciliation–they are frustrated with Democratic leadership’s hesitance to play hardball.
Let’s not dismiss Tip O’Neill’s great sentiment–from Sal DiMasi to Diane Wilkerson, as Scott Brown has acknowledged himself, Massachusetts voters are frustrated with corruption among state leaders. For all of these factors, we cannot take Scott Brown’s victory as a national lesson–we can only learn from Martha Coakley’s loss.
President Obama’s voters had a compelling reason to turn out in 2008. Organizing for America’s influence in turning out voters is nothing compared with the strategies Republicans have used in the past (i.e. gay marriage ballot initiatives in 2004) to ensure conservative voters head to the polls. Democrats stayed home (or voted in protest) because reforms did not go far enough.
Democrats have to build a coalition party, but unlike what Indiana Democratic Senator Evan Bayh says, must cater to its base. Independents are necessary for victory–but let’s be clear–independents and Democrats voted overwhelmingly for the policy initiatives that President Obama campaigned on. Even if you are one of the folks that believe that voters didn’t understand what they were bargaining for–President Obama campaigned on reform with a public option.
President Obama just learned that familiar saying: elections have consequences. That should have been the message for months from the White House and Harry Reid. I can’t believe I’m saying this, but it appears that it’s unfortunate that President Obama’s call for an end to partisan politics was not the empty rhetoric that his critics suggested. If it were, reconciliation would have been used ages ago. One can throw the argument that a few Republican votes, closed door meetings, etc. does not create a bipartisan environment–and that’s fine, but at the end of the day, President Obama must drop his fixation with bipartisanship. This does not mean that I am suggesting the President should be more liberal.
If Democrats can be elected by campaigning on real change–substantive change, we must deliver real and substantive change. Give the American people what they voted for before public opinion shifts. Republicans like Mitt Romney often decry the abandonment of conservative principles by the Grand Old Party–Democrats are on the verge of an identity crisis. Republicans didn’t necessarily fall into a trap by running to the center–they simply abandoned their core principles and failed to cater to their base. Republicans may have won the messaging on healthcare. It may simply be too late.
Gubernatorial candidates here in Maine have turned Brown’s narrative into a statement about the national mood. Sure, Democrats can take a lesson from a lackluster Coakley campaign, and it’s a safe assumption to say that this fall will represent a less than perfect environment for Democrats–but Scott Brown’s win is not automatically a win for every GOP candidate. Let’s remember that Scott Brown ran an anti-establishment, insurgent candidacy, winning over independent voters that didn’t necessarily agree with Republican policy, but simply disagreed with the Democratic Party.
Pragmatism is just as important as centrism. Voters in Massachusetts still want change–but let’s be clear–they did not embrace the Republican agenda. Democrats should run middle of the road candidates, absolutely–but they need to be politically ruthless. At the very least, a process like reconciliation could be backed up by the fact that Democrats campaigned on significant change–if voters change their mind, Democrats are for something. The Republican Party needs to hurry up and offer substantive reform; it’s not enough to be just against the party in the majority.
One could argue that this creates an opening for an independent (or quasi-independent) like Eliot Cutler to come in and say that he is above the gridlock. Quite simply, the problem is not the system, it’s fear of using the tools that the system provides. Because Democrats campaigned so very heavily on changing the nature of politics and changing the country, the party is tethered.
We need to change the country before we can change Washington.
"Mask his extremist views"? Really, Ben, let's not be ridiculous. He's a moderate, New England Republican who agrees with Olympia and Susan more than he does with most your so-called "Tea party movement." He's pro-choice, and as a legislator received high ratings from labor groups and groups supporting clean elections. He's nowhere near as far to the right as, say, John Kerry is to the left. Conservatives were energized by his opposition to healthcare reform – that's it. With most of the state agreeing, that's hardly extreme.
Americans are sick of this kind of mean, misleading politics. These sorts of attacks cost Coakley the election as much as anything.
Ben- you are DEAD WRONG on most things written in this article.
However, it's the blinded Democrat party loyalists like you that will continue to make it easier with each passing day for the Center-Right voting majority to free this country from the death-grip that liberals like you have on it right now.
Jim is right- Scott Brown is a moderate. However, I would offer that if you are to say the "Tea party movement" is made up of "extremists" as you, Keith Olbermann, and Rachel Maddow like to say, then you also must accept that the Democrat leadership is made up of "extremists" with the likes of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. The big difference is the former is trying to SAVE The Country from the destruction being caused by the latter.
I am going to give Ben points for the pickup truck reference. Nice!