Reading post Massachusetts election tea leaves

Reading post Massachusetts election tea leaves

It's over! A Republican, sworn to being the 41st vote to kill the current health care reform bill in the Senate, won and I'm not terribly unhappy. Why? Because the reform bill has been so watered down in an a failed attempt to get bipartisan support that it falls short of what is needed. Because too much ransom was paid to many individuals and special interests to get it passed by the senate. Because it became more a matter of winning a political victory by both parties than a winning a victory for the general public and because Democrats, by not attempting to delay seating Scott Brown like unscrupulous Republicans did Al Franken in order to prevail, were able to seize the opportunity to function in a civil and honorable manner which is what most people expect. 

The political pundits are busy spewing out reasons for the failure of a democrat to retain Senator Kennedy's senate seat with democratic leaning pundits blaming poor campaigning by Martha Coakley and right leaning pundits claiming that the vote represents an overwhelming rejection of President Obama's policies. In my opinion both sides are wrong. Given a message that people can understand and appreciate the majority of the public will vote for a complete buffoon, whose speeches make english teachers cry and who can't find his way off stage after displaying his ignorance. Dissatisfaction with the status quo can not be extrapolated into total rejection or acceptance of an ideology. The remarkable thing about the Massachusetts vote, quoting an article by  Drew Westen (Psychology  Professor at Emory University) is that a candidate in just one years time,"was able to "turn the fear and anger voters felt in 2006 and 2008 at a Republican Party that had destroyed the economy, redistributed massive amounts of wealth from the middle class to the richest of the rich and the biggest of big businesses, and waged a trillion-dollar war in the wrong country, into populist rage at whatever Democrat voters can cast their ballot against."

  

Senator Elect Scott Brown was not able to accomplish this feat by himself. He had a lot of help, including from President Obama whose (in the words of Professor Westen) "steadfast refusal to acknowledge that we have a two-party system, his insistence on making destructive concessions to the same party voters he had sent packing twice in a row in the name of "bipartisanship," and his refusal ever to utter the words "I am a Democrat" and to articulate what that means, are not among his virtues. We have competing ideas in a democracy -- and hence competing parties -- for a reason. To paper them over and pretend they do not exist, particularly when the ideology of one of the parties has proven so devastating to the lives of everyday Americans, is not a virtue. It is an abdication of responsibility." In other words it was the unwillingness of President Obama to stand up to the party whose policies have all but destroyed the country, and his willingness to continue many of those policies, that the independents and some Democrats in Massachusetts were objecting to with their votes. 

How can voting for a Republican be interpreted as a vote against past Republican policies? Therein lies a glimmer of hope for a less partisan debate in Washington with elected officials more interested in serving the public than in gaining political advantage. Scott Brown ran a smart, issue oriented campaign and distanced itself from the radicle right wing that has seized control of the Republican party. Based on the few interviews of now Senator Scott Brown I have seen he is an independent thinker who refuses to demonize Democrats and may in fact work with them in the senate. I especially liked that one of his first calls, if not his first call, after winning the election was to the widow of Senator Kennedy, not to Republican leaders or right wing pundits. If I was a resident of Massachusetts I might very well have voted for Scott Brown. I wish him well but fear that, if he does indeed turn out to be a moderate, the far right will turn against him, pour millions into defeating him in the 2015 primary and he will be a one term senator.

Sincerely,

Charles Leach

Lynchburg, Ohio

To the editor:

It's over! A Republican, sworn to being the 41st vote to kill the current health care reform bill in the Senate, won and I'm not terribly unhappy. Why? Because the reform bill has been so watered down in an a failed attempt to get bipartisan support that it falls short of what is needed. Because too much ransom was paid to many individuals and special interests to get it passed by the senate. Because it became more a matter of winning a political victory by both parties than a winning a victory for the general public and because Democrats, by not attempting to delay seating Scott Brown like unscrupulous Republicans did Al Franken in order to prevail, were able to seize the opportunity to function in a civil and honorable manner which is what most people expect. 

The political pundits are busy spewing out reasons for the failure of a democrat to retain Senator Kennedy's senate seat with democratic leaning pundits blaming poor campaigning by Martha Coakley and right leaning pundits claiming that the vote represents an overwhelming rejection of President Obama's policies. In my opinion both sides are wrong. Given a message that people can understand and appreciate the majority of the public will vote for a complete buffoon, whose speeches make english teachers cry and who can't find his way off stage after displaying his ignorance. Dissatisfaction with the status quo can not be extrapolated into total rejection or acceptance of an ideology. The remarkable thing about the Massachusetts vote, quoting an article by  Drew Westen (Psychology  Professor at Emory University) is that a candidate in just one years time,"was able to "turn the fear and anger voters felt in 2006 and 2008 at a Republican Party that had destroyed the economy, redistributed massive amounts of wealth from the middle class to the richest of the rich and the biggest of big businesses, and waged a trillion-dollar war in the wrong country, into populist rage at whatever Democrat voters can cast their ballot against."

  

Senator Elect Scott Brown was not able to accomplish this feat by himself. He had a lot of help, including from President Obama whose (in the words of Professor Westen) "steadfast refusal to acknowledge that we have a two-party system, his insistence on making destructive concessions to the same party voters he had sent packing twice in a row in the name of "bipartisanship," and his refusal ever to utter the words "I am a Democrat" and to articulate what that means, are not among his virtues. We have competing ideas in a democracy -- and hence competing parties -- for a reason. To paper them over and pretend they do not exist, particularly when the ideology of one of the parties has proven so devastating to the lives of everyday Americans, is not a virtue. It is an abdication of responsibility." In other words it was the unwillingness of President Obama to stand up to the party whose policies have all but destroyed the country, and his willingness to continue many of those policies, that the independents and some Democrats in Massachusetts were objecting to with their votes. 

How can voting for a Republican be interpreted as a vote against past Republican policies? Therein lies a glimmer of hope for a less partisan debate in Washington with elected officials more interested in serving the public than in gaining political advantage. Scott Brown ran a smart, issue oriented campaign and distanced itself from the radicle right wing that has seized control of the Republican party. Based on the few interviews of now Senator Scott Brown I have seen he is an independent thinker who refuses to demonize Democrats and may in fact work with them in the senate. I especially liked that one of his first calls, if not his first call, after winning the election was to the widow of Senator Kennedy, not to Republican leaders or right wing pundits. If I was a resident of Massachusetts I might very well have voted for Scott Brown. I wish him well but fear that, if he does indeed turn out to be a moderate, the far right will turn against him, pour millions into defeating him in the 2015 primary and he will be a one term senator.

Sincerely,

Charles Leach

Lynchburg, Ohio