Lessons from the Massachusetts Special Election
To a large extent, the special election to fill Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat was a referendum on the Democrats’ legislative ambitions in general and the current health care reform bill in particular. There are lessons to be learned from Scott Brown’s defeat of Martha Coakley to become the 41st Republican in the Senate, and one hopes the President and Congress are a quick study.
Contrary to what some liberals (oops, I mean “progressives”) like Michael Moore would wish to believe, the Democratic base did not desert those in power because they weren’t liberal enough. On the contrary, Brown won because independents and many moderate Democrats are unhappy with what appears to be this administration’s preference for big government solutions and the resulting increases in taxes and debt.
The health care bill is a good case in point. The President and the Democratically controlled Congress are attempting to foist upon the American people a trillion dollar health care plan, bought and paid for with backroom deals, and loaded with giveaways to the health care and health insurance industries. The President campaigned on “change”. But if this health care bill doesn’t prove that it’s still business as usual in Washington, nothing does.
So what should the President do? First, he should abandon the health care reform bill in its current form. Make no mistake, neither the House nor Senate bills address the real reasons for out of control heath care costs and would do little more than force everyone to purchase the health insurance industry’s flawed product; most likely at a higher cost. Pushing this catastrophically flawed bill through Congress, especially if the effort appears to involve any appearance of political gamesmanship, would be political suicide for the Democrats. Instead, the President and Congress should concentrate on only those reforms upon which most everyone can agree. It’s likely that with a scaled back, targeted approach to health care reform a few Republicans could be brought on board. (I’ll provide details in another post.) Not only would this be a huge win for the American people, but politically it would show that Obama is not only interested in bringing about change, he’s capable of change himself.
Second, the President should recognize that you can’t win elections without the backing of moderate and independent voters, and in Massachusetts they voted for a course correction. In his first year in office, Obama made the same mistake Bill Clinton made in 1992. Clinton beat Bush by appealing to independents and the so called “Reagan democrats”. But once in office, he pushed a classically liberal democratic agenda, the centerpiece of which was a big government health care reform bill. His approval ratings tanked and in the 1994 mid-term elections the Democrats lost control of both Houses of Congress. But Clinton learned his lesson, and for the rest of that term he chose to govern from the center, rather than the liberal left. He handily won re-election and by all accounts left office a popular and successful president. (Except, perhaps, for that impeachment thing.)
President Obama is actually lucky in that he’s had some early warning signs of the impending political disaster headed his way. If last November’s Republican gubernatorial wins in Virginia and New Jersey didn’t wake him up, certainly what happened in Massachusetts should do the trick. If he’s smart, he’ll make it clear that he’s heard the will of the people. He’ll become more fiscally conservative and dial back on his ambitious agenda. He’ll try to truly usher in an era of bipartisanship by repudiating ideas that would lead to bigger government intrusion in our lives and he’ll take a more market oriented approach to the reforms he wants to implement. He’ll steer clear of job killing legislation like Cap and Trade and he’ll consider options for reducing the deficit, not increasing it.
Hopefully, President Obama has gotten the message sent by the voters of Massachusetts. If not, in the 2010 midterm elections, it will be, as Yogi Berra used to say, deja vu all over again.
|
If you enjoyed this article, please share it with others by clicking on one or more of the icons below. If you wish to be notified each time I put up a new post, you can subscribe through one of the links to the right. (If you don’t know what RSS is, just choose the email option.) Finally, leave some feedback or join the discussion by commenting below. I’d love to know what you think. |
by David Boaz or 
by David Bergland, both excellent books on libertarian thought.
Comment by Brian Dzyak | January 20th, 2010
For a dose of reality, I recommend you add Thom Hartmann’s THRESHOLD and SCREWED to your own reading list as well as Naomi Klein’s THE SHOCK DOCTRINE.
The problem with libertarianism is that it falsely equates laissez faire attitudes with “freedom.” In the libertarian mind, getting rid of government entirely means everyone is 100% “free” when exactly the opposite occurs, that being FASCISM as Corporations and other wealthy Aristocrats rush in to fill the vacuum left behind when Government regulations and protections are lifted.
Libertarians in general are wholly misinformed and their entire philosophy is built on the level of a toddler.
The world is a lot more complicated than “Hey, if we get rid of Government, then we’ll be Freeeeeeeeeeeee!”
Morons.
[Reply]
SunshinesOn Reply:
January 20th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
Brian-
I am just a reader touched by your words. I was a democrat, now I am an independent looking for the people who will honestly represent we the people of this great country and not their own pockets…
I love your enthusiasm and that you pay attention to politics, this is important for everyone. However; it seems you didn’t read the article as your accusations don’t fit anything ever said here. Nothing in this blog or article says no government… In fact in this article it says:
“Instead, the President and Congress should concentrate on only those reforms upon which most everyone can agree. It’s likely that with a scaled back, targeted approach to health care reform a few Republicans could be brought on board. (I’ll provide details in another post.) Not only would this be a huge win for the American people, but politically it would show that Obama is not only interested in bringing about change, he’s capable of change himself.”
That is just the way to work with people so that everyone is represented and so that the true problems are dealt with…seems fair to me.
How would you suggest it be done so that everyone is represented? What are your ideas for change that is much needed in our economy and health care?
[Reply]
freedomminute Reply:
January 21st, 2010 at 5:10 am
Brian,
First of all, you clearly have no idea what the libertarian philosophy advocates or you would not have written the comment you wrote (either here or on Facebook). One of my favorite explanations comes from libertarianism.com – Libertarianism is the combination of liberty (the freedom to live your life in any peaceful way you choose), responsibility (the prohibition against the use of force against others, except in defense), and tolerance (honoring and respecting the peaceful choices of others). I’m not quite sure what part of that you could possibly to take issue with. I therefore have to assume that whatever you’re so riled up about, it likely isn’t libertarianism.
Second, you make the same mistake as the subject of my previous post Who Wants to Be a Master Debater. You claim I said something I didn’t say and then you argue against it (rather childishly I might add). This is a classic straw man argument and is totally meaningless since, as SunshinesOn points out, your response basically has nothing to do with anything written in this post or anywhere on this blog. It’s as if you didn’t even take the time to read the post. No one here, and certainly not me, ever advocated “getting rid of government entirely”.
As for your definition of Fascism, again you have no idea what you are talking about. From Websters online dictionary: fascism – a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. Libertarians advocate exactly the opposite of that. We believe that individual rights are supreme, with a limited government whose main purpose is to protect those individual rights against violation by other individuals, groups, corporations, and the government itself. Again, that is the exact opposite of Fascism. Now if your point is that “eliminating all government” could lead to Fascism because there is a power void which could be filled with an oppressive regime, that is certainly a possibility (although not necessarily an eventuality). But since libertarians do not advocate eliminating all government, your point about fascism is moot and there’s no reason to debate it because it has nothing to do with libertarianism in general or this particular post in particular.
As to your belief that libertarian philosophy “is built on the level of a toddler”, I suppose that means you think that many of our Founding Fathers such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison or great thinkers such as John Locke and John Stuart Mill had the emotional intelligence of children since their social and political philosophy is clearly based on libertarianism. Again, I suggest you inform yourself before you go spouting off on things you clearly don’t understand.
Finally, as for your generally rude behavior both here and on Facebook, I can only hope that you think about how you’ve conducted yourself and consider whether this truly reflects the type of person you are or wish to be.
[Reply]
Comment by SunshinesOn | January 20th, 2010
I too hope that Obama will get the message and go to the center… I really thought he was going to do things different. I voted for him cause I thought he’d take care of the issues at hand.
I have been disenchanted by the way the health care bill is being handled- no reform, just more back end deals and nothing that needs to be addressed is being addressed…being forced to buy products that are no good and oh, yeah if your married- you will pay even more for the current health bill at hand. Sad, but true.
Over here hoping hoping hoping for the change we were promised. Seeing what really needs to shift is the two party system and politicians that doing this as a careers in the end for political gain- not what our forefathers intended…. the people need to be represented here.
Hoping there will be some balance with this more republicans in Senate. ((NEVER thought I would EVER say that!))
[Reply]