Why did Brown win?
Republican Scott Brown beat Democrat Martha Coakley in a special election yesterday to fill Ted Kennedy’s seat in Massachusetts. The seat was held by Kennedy for over 40 years, and the state is one of the “bluest” – going to Obama in 2008 by 26 percentage points. How did this happen?
There are two competing story lines, both having to do with our favorites – principles and their application to practical politics. The first is a story of too-quick and too-radical change; Obama was elected as a transformational figure with no real vetting by the media or public, and his administration is moving too aggressively to change the fundamentals of our economy, social services, foreign policy, and culture. The Republicans are winning, now, because the American people (ugh I hate using the phrase “the American people,” as if we all march in lock-step) see Obama for what he is – a leftist in a center-right nation.
The second story line, promoted by liberals, is that the Dems are reaping the rewards of weakness and inaction. Obama ran on the premise of fundamental change – we can’t get better policy until we change the way Washington works. Yet after a year of big bank bailouts, little to no reform of the financial, health insurance, or pharmaceutical industries (even with bills intended to do just that), escalated wars, and hesitance on gay rights and global warming, the Obama Administration seems unwilling to deliver on its promises. The Republicans are winning because the Dems are staying home.
So, as I’ve suggested before, either Obama is an over-active radical lefty, or he’s a corporate-sellout centrist waffler. Which is it, and how is it that both stories continue to thrive?
-Colin
Related posts:
- More polarized than ever
- More on healthcare and choice
- Obama’s governing philosophy
- President Obama and The New York Times must read this blog
- Healthcare is nice, but (morally) expensive
ShareComments
One Response to “Why did Brown win?”
Leave a Reply
I think you’re forgetting Occam’s razor here. The simplest explanation (and probably best) is that in Martha Coakley ran a very poor campaign in which she blew a double digit lead by assuming that Massachusetts would elect a democrat and hardly campaigning at all. Then, when she did campaign, she made a number of blunders down the stretch including misspelling Massachusetts and saying Boston hero Curt Schilling was a Yankees fan.
Brown’s opposition to the ‘leftist’ platform here was insincere because his primary issue, stopping health care reform, is inconsistent. He approves of the Massachusetts healthcare system but opposes the national system despite the overwhelming similarities between them. In fact the major difference is that the national system is slightly more conservative and saves somewhat more money over the long run.
Elections are rarely about policy and are always about politics. In this case Coakley had a double digit lead as of only a week or two ago. As the House and Senate have been out of session over the last few weeks and no major domestic policy news has come out tying this result to a policy agenda doesn’t seem to fit the data. If it was a reaction to policy (or inaction) Brown would have been closer throughout the race – not just at the end.