OMG! Hell has frozen over! | Eastern North Carolina Now

     As events unfold in the world of politics and sports, I have developed a habit of calling my father before I reach my final and conclusive opinion. Dad will be 85 years old this week. He is a D-Day veteran, lifelong Boston sports fan, and a diehard Massachusetts Democrat who proudly declares that he has never voted for a Republican presidential candidate. Needless to say, his wisdom is based on living through 20th century history, not just reading about it. So, I asked him on Thursday the following question: “Are you more shocked at the Red Sox winning a World Series title in your lifetime, or a Republican replacing Ted Kennedy only 6 months after his passing“? He didn’t hesitate in his response. “Never in a million years did I think I’d see what happened on Tuesday.” The election of Scott Brown by Bay State voters was truly a momentous event that should not be taken lightly by anyone on either side of the political ledger.

     Having said that, in the past few days, I have been reading the predictable response by conservatives suggesting that this election somehow signifies a significant condemnation of liberalism, big government intrusiveness, an outright rejection of the Obama domestic (and socialist) agenda, and a defeat of health care reform; along with the prerequisite posthumous digs at the late Senator Kennedy.

     In the words of ESPN college football analyst Lee Corso, “Not so fast, my friend!”

     First, regarding the election itself, there is a mythology about Massachusetts being monolithically liberal in its voting habits. Over the last 45 years, voters in Massachusetts have elected 2 Republican Senators, Edward Brooke in 1967 and Scott Brown this past Tuesday. Voters also elected 3 Republican governors in that similar time frame (Francis Sargent 1967-1975, William Weld 1990-1997, Mitt Romney 2003-2007). There is an independent streak among Bay State voters that does not get much attention.

    Second, it cannot be overstated how much the Democratic Party, on the local and national level, completely fell asleep at the switch in the months following Ted Kennedy’s death. It is curious to me that Kennedy pushed so hard to change the election rules before his death to try and ensure a Democratic outcome without publicly handpicking a successor. It does suggest a certain amount of arrogance to assume that voters would automatically replace “The Lion of the Senate” with another Democrat. Martha Coakley, the Democratic candidate, was an unmitigated disaster. When talking to friends in Massachusetts about her, the words “dreadful”, “boring”, and “uninspiring” were often repeated. She went so far as to call former Red Sox pitching hero, Curt Schilling, “another Yankees fan” because he was an outspoken supporter for Scott Brown. Note to all politicians: do not mess with Red Sox Nation!

    Third, if we learned anything about the 2008 national elections, it is this: voter discontent is a powerful force. The election of Barack Obama and the supermajority gained by Democrats in the House and Senate was a “throw-the-bums-out” election. It wasn’t just a rejection of the failed George W. Bush presidency, it was an attempt to send very clear messages to those who represent us in Washington that we will not put up with the status quo anymore. Because candidate Obama’s team of advisers were savvy enough to pick up on this theme, “Hope” and “Change” became concepts hammered into the voters psyche. The Scott Brown victory in Massachusetts last Tuesday echoed a very similar resonance.

    Those are the obvious observances surrounding the election of Scott Brown. However, there are nuances that shouldn’t be overlooked.

    First, with regard to health care reform, indeed, candidate Brown tapped into the uneasiness of voters vis-a-vis the Democratic health care overhaul plan. However, Massachusetts is already a state with a universal health care plan that enjoys a majority of public support. What Brown suggested was that Bay State citizens shouldn’t have to pay for it’s own state universal health care system as well as everyone elses. The post-election polls suggest that Massachusetts voters are NOT opposed to a government health care initiative. What the polling numbers do suggest is that this particular health care overhaul plan does not fit into what citizens are looking for in terms of reform.

    Second, I confess to drinking the Obama kool-aid when it came to his promise of government transparency. In regards to this specific attempt at national health care reform, he has failed miserably. If there is anything worse than the town hall meetings of last summer which brought out every right-wing wacko and Republican hack, it is the backroom deals and secretive nature about what is truly in this reform package passed by the House and Senate and now blocked because of the new Senator from Massachusetts. I am truly disappointed at the way this administration-- with all the Washington veterans it has on hand-- have botched this entire health care reform process.

    I believe, as Congress and the White House go back to the drawing board on health care reform, we will look back on the election of Scott Brown as a very good thing on the part of government checks and balances and the necessity of compromise in the political art of governance. I continue to believe that we will look at this current President in the same manner.

    One final note… Politicians and public figures are easy fodder for a nation now obsessed with tabloid headlines. With Ted Kennedy, clearly his warts were very public and out in the open. I don’t think anyone would argue that he came from a privileged background, that he had issues with alcohol, or that the events of Chappaquiddick revealed a blatant attempt to save his own political career. However, to acknowledge that side of him without taking into account his dedication and commitment to the citizens of Massachusetts for 47 years, leaves an unbalanced portrait that does not represent or reflect the totality of who he was. Kennedy worked tirelessly not only for his own constituency, but also at forging compromises with his colleagues in the Senate to ensure that the country, as a whole, was served effectively. His public service record, while you may disagree with his causes, was undeniably consistent and passionate. For that, he is to be lauded.