Brown, Coakley, and a Confession
Author’s Note: Though not planned when it was published, this post ended up the first in a series. Here are links to parts two and three. In the second part, I defend the suggestion at the end of this first installment; in the third, I acknowledge that the suggestion is flawed.
——————-
So Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown and Democrat Martha Coakley had their final debate last night; and by all accounts — at least all the accounts I’ve read — it was a feisty affair.
If you follow political matters at all, you probably already know why so many eyeballs are focused on this race. Let’s recap …
1. It’s a race for the seat that was held forever by the late “Lion of the Senate,” Ted Kennedy, a well-known champion of health care reform.
2. The conventional wisdom holds that this seat should go to Kennedy’s same-party, successor-in-waiting, Ms. Coakley; but Mr. Brown is doing better in some polls than expected, and Massachusetts’ races (despite conventional wisdom) are not guaranteed blow outs for Democrats.
3. This particular race will be decided Jan. 19, well before anyone expects health care legislation to be finalized and re-voted in the U.S. House and Senate.
4. Mr. Brown has not been shy about his desire to be vote #41 in the Senate, to kill national health care reform legislation.
Add up those items and you can understand why Democrats have been gnashing their teeth; why Organizing for America (the successor group to Obama for America) sent out a recent email alert, asking volunteers to make calls to Massachusetts voters; and why Bill Clinton is expected to be in the state Friday to support the Coakley campaign in its final, pre-election gambit.
While I can’t vote for her, I’m rooting for Ms. Coakley, only because I want to see health care reform pass.
Granted, if the Senate’s “dangerous dysfunction” — its 60-vote threshold — were not an issue, my take on all this might be different: I would probably not root for Ms. Coakley, especially if this commenter’s description of her track record is accurate. And I might not back the current, Senate or House versions of health care reform; they certainly have their flaws.
But knowing that the 60-vote rule is not going anway anytime soon; agreeing with the Obama Administration that, if this shot at reform fails, nothing like it will happen again for a very long time; and considering the critical nature of certain consumer protections in the Senate and House bills — e.g., the ban on pre-existing conditions — I’m left with little choice but to hope the Democrats, and by default Ms. Coakley, prevail in Massachusetts.
And no, that’s not the confession part of this post. Regular readers are already quite familiar with my overhwelming allegiance to the current reform effort — and last I checked, confessions involve matters that are not so well known. Hence, the real confession is this: I’m on the verge of changing my affiliation, from Independent to Democrat.
Last week, I received a call from a volunteer with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), asking for a contribution. I told him: “I vote for the candidate, not the party.” He tried to explain what I already know about contemporary Republican obstructionism, but I wouldn’t listen. Instead, I kept repeating: “I vote for the candidate, not the party.” Today — after taking time to understand the threat to health care reform, if Mr. Brown wins Massachussets’ special election — I might not be so resolute in my response to that DCCC volunteer, or his counterparts at the DSCC.
It’s not that I’m a huge fan of the Democratic Party. I’m not. In fact, I’m not a huge fan of any party, and I continue to believe George Washington was right, when he warned (more than 200 years ago) against the formation of parties.
So, if my ideal goal is no political parties, what’s the best path to achieving that goal? Answer: Make party affiliation meaningless. And how do we do that? One option: Help elect so many members of one major party, that the other major party is marginalized to the point of irrelevance.
If I were forced to make that choice, today — to boost one party to the virtual elimination of the other — I would pick the Democrats. They have a bigger tent. Within their tent, they seem to have more reasonable/constructive conservatives than the Republicans do. And while I don’t agree with every position the Democrats (as a party) articulate, I agree with more of their positions than I do Republican positions, at this point in time.
Am I worried about one-party rule? No. I’m confident that, as long as we have fair elections, the diversity of this nation will elect a diversity of candidates, regardless of party. It happens already. Consider Tony Campbell’s description of Western Pennsylvania in this post from nearly two years ago. Net: I believe, even with one major party, there will still be plenty of conservatives and progressives and moderates; but they’ll maybe — just maybe — be in a better position to debate issues on principle rather than party affiliation, especially when you consider how party affiliation seems to terribly distort candidate posturing, above and beyond the normal course of such posturing.
30 Responses to “Brown, Coakley, and a Confession”
To paraphrase what you wrote “….at least all the accounts I’ve read — it was a feisty affair…,” instead at least all the accounts I’ve read — Scott Brown WON. If you can't even be honest with your description of the debate, what can you be honest about?
Pete, I'd disagree with your characterization of the Dem “conservatives” (though I won't defend the GOP here). More to the point, though, about a separate issue you raised:
“So, if my ideal goal is no political parties, what’s the best path to achieving that goal?”
Where it be to dilute the power of parties by dispersing it, or (more commonly) to accept the existence of parties and to harness them better, why not seek not only fracturing of the two major parties now into four or more parties (this would have to be forced, as well as measures taken to prevent reconsolidation later), and have proportional representation? (I bring this up again even though it's usually far lefties who want proportional representation, because their extreme views get little or no mainstream support of note and this is the only way they would achieve effective representation, so it is the far lefties who normally seek “P.R.” But others such as I believe this would be good, too.)
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/prlib.htm
“I also agree with the Administration’s view that, if this shot at reform fails, nothing like it will happen again for a very long time, if ever”
Health care “reform” (or what has always been sought this year, federal takeover)? No, it won't be “another generation” of time that will have to elapse before another attempt at it, if it fails this time, and it woudn't justify rushing to adopt anything with “health care” or “reform” labeling, no matter how bad. If what has finally evolved (or devolved) doesn't get passed, it won't be forever before another attempt. (The real issue is what the public thinks of the Dems and of their behavior, and if the Dems are capable and competent next time to try to do something better.) Whatever gets passed soon will be built upon and “improved” later.
Plus we have yet to see how all the affected parties respond after “reform” is enacted, and if the insurers choose to be like the bankers and effectively cut their own throats from a PR standpoint.
Martha Coakley has a lot of serious negatives. As a prosecutor, she worked on some really troubling cases and made some (in my opinion) VERY troubling calls. She cut a deal with notorious pedophile priest, participated in the Fells Acres witch hunt, didn't prosecute a politically connected dad who raped a little girl with a hot curling iron, and prosecuted a dad who punched out a child molester while letting the molester go free. Scott Brown isn't attacking Coakley with this kind of stuff, but his supporters in Massachusetts know about it and are talking about it. That makes for some SERIOUS energy in this race, over and above the bigger political issues of lost jobs, higher taxes, out-of-control spending, and the like.
I think the chance of Brown winning is low–but real. I'd give him about the same odds as the 2004 Red Sox.
Yeah, you are a real “moderate” there, Pete. Why don't you just man up and admit you are a kool aid drinking liberal weenie?
Pete, you took a wrong turn in partisanville. You're at “The Moderate Voice”. You're looking for “The Liberal Hack”.
Pete, keep your head up! Plus, you'll have the last laugh if Bloomberg is our next GOP President.
Well, it seems you got at least a three-parter here. First, on MA, I don't live there so I can't vote. What I will say is that there is something very tempting about going for the underdog. The endorsements he received from The Boston Herald and the trooper union are very critical to Coakley. Granted, they could always endorse that way, but I don't think anyone would have imagined this race even being talked about now. I just get the sense that Coakley thought the seat was hers for the taking; all she had to do is show up.
And while I know that you didn't intend to bring up specifics with regard to the health bill, perhaps you could comment on this:
Health-Care Bill Could Raise Insurance Costs for Students, Education Groups Warn
If this is how we're going to try paying for this thing, perhaps it would be a great idea to kill it now and actually bring in some adults to think about it. We've already seen the reaction of students in CA toward a 30%+ tuition hike. What do you suppose they will do with say something around 40% – 50%?
I hope you enjoy your time in the Democratic Party. I'm sure the Independent camp will welcome you back when you get frustrated again.
You're a smart guy Pete. Not because you are going to vote democrat, but because you vote the person and the issues – and because you care enough to not play into a two party system that is falling prey to division and obstruction. Blind loyalty to party is a game for fools… even the ones who have learned how to type.
So you don't like political parties, so you think we should try the model of the Communist Party, where you're either in, or you're little people?
“Hence, the real confession is this: I’m on the verge of changing my affiliation, from Independent to Democrat.”
Helluva sense of good timing you got there, pardner. Kind a like joining up with the US Cavalry just in time for Little Big Horn.
Kind a like joining up with the US Cavalry just in time for Little Big Horn.
*** Coffee spew to keyboard alert ***
Yep, that's what we're proposing: fewer parties. The only possible parties have their names trademarked already, so there's certainly no way to add to them.
“joining up with the US Cavalry just in time for Little Big Horn”
Back then, and last year with the Dems, they were so overconfident they left the Gatling gun at HQ.
This year?
I missed the most recent debate, but I caught the 12/27/10 three-way debate that included the Libertarian candidate.
The Libertarian candidate didn't strike me as that particularly strong of a candidate, but he certainly seemed no worse than Coakely or Brown. Personally, I see no reason to reward the Democrats (who already have control of the House, Senate, and Presidency) with a 60th senator, nor do I see any reason to reward the Republicans with another reliable vote in favor of their hawkish foreign policy.
Pete–
It can't have been easy for you to write this.
Pete, I think your rationale for voting democrat is an interesting one, and if it turns out to not have any merit, then I guess that will teach you not to be taking cues from an upstart like George Washington!
Yeah, that big, old tent of the Democrats – a warm welcome for Catholics, Evangelicals, orthodox Jews, small business owners, farmers, miners. We all feel so much at home, there…especially when we get to be called terrorists for being pro-life, be called racists, tools of Zionism, greedy rich people and rapists of the environment. Gives us the warm fuzzies, that's for sure…
Obama, Reid, Pelosi Parody song
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UR75PodzQgo
You're about as moderate and independent as Nancy Pelosi.
I'm almost starting to feel sorry for all the despairing reactionaries. It can't be easy knowing the horse you backed for 8 years was such a staggering failure. Neither can it be easy watching the party you think you're a part of be so empty of worthwhile ideas. Reckon all you've got left is to rant against the folks who are actually trying to do something about that mess they were left with. Yup, I almost feel sorry for those folks. Almost.
Nothing says “moderate” like suggesting a one party rule… moderate tyranny, anyone?
Unity truly is the eradication of dissent, eh comrades?
Needless to say, being “moderate” doesn't mean diconnecting from congitive abilities. Pete has gone to the trouble here to explain and support his rationale (“Make party affiliation meaningless”) and show examples of where it has worked, and yet some people here evidently didn't bother to read that far… or maybe they just didn't bother to actually think about what they were reading. If all your thinking starts and stops with the party, then you'll never see the big picture.
You don't seem to understand how the system works. In a one party system the only meaningful vote will be in the primary, as their candidate will be the only serious contender in the general election. But only the general election is governed by U.S. law; there is nothing in the constitution or law guaranteeing or governing that. It is up each party how it picks its contender. It so happens that both major parties currently do it by a democratic process very similar to the general election. It was not always so: there was a time when candidates were largely chosen by party bosses. And it could become so again. A one party system would give us no practical guarantee of democracy.
You are very confusing. You say you would chose the democrats because within their tent, they seem to have more reasonable/constructive conservatives? Who? Please tell me who in the democrat party is conservative? Who is the 1 democrat saying “Hold on…we're spending too much money.”
But this healthcare bill is horrible. It does nothing to bring down costs of healthcare, and healthcare run by the government is really healthcare controlled by special interests. The unions already got their exemption from the Cadillac healthcare tax. Look how many behind closed door meetings are going on and how many deals do you think are being made?
So here is an idea, instead of government deciding what kind of healthcare each of us should get and mandating it and giving the IRS even greater power, how about our employers, instead of purchasing high-cost insurance plans, divert that money into a health-savings account for each employee and the employer could then also cover the cost of a low-cost catastrophic plan. We could use the money in the health savings account for doctor visits, diagnostics, prescriptions, etc. Whatever money we don't use could be rolled over and accumulate into the next year. That way, the free market will bring the cost of healthcare down because you have gotten rid of the third party payer. If we are giving subsidies to the the uninsured, how about we just write them a check and deposit it into a health savings account that can only be used for that purpose. Our government does not need to entangle itself anymore into the healthcare system. We are broke.
“Pete has gone to the trouble here to explain and support his rationale”
While this site is not a moderate Web site, Pete is a moderate liberal, not extremist at all. (In fact, it's reasonable to presume that he is against left-extremism, not only right-extremism, as a rule.)
It was not for nothing that I referred as I did to (New York mayor) Bloomberg earlier (as well as counsel him in the face of the harsh reaction his comments and thread have drawn). Bloomberg is one of, if not the, best examples of contemporary “Rockefeller Republicans” (a better descriptor here to use than merely “RINO”), liberal Republicans who should be Democrats and who are antithetical in particular to the social-conservative segment of conservatives and Republicans that make the news and that liberals (including Pete, probably) find loathsome. Pete is a Brookings or rightward liberal, from my observations. He's far from being as far to the left as so much else on this Web site is.
“the goal is to increase the variety of viewpoints that can be thrown into the mix”
[multi-seat governing bodies]
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/prlib.htm
“without the wrench of polarization”
[single-person offices]
http://bcn.boulder.co.us/government/approvalvot…
Of course left isn't as left as it used to be either.
This site is as moderate as any I've seen, but I can see why people from a conservative background would consider it left. It's all relative. In any case, I'd be glad to vote republican again – IF they they would only demonstrate they had a clue, an idea or two, a vision, even a little common sense. Still waiting for signs…
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Jonathan Tai, Claude Gauvin. Claude Gauvin said: Massachusetts Senate War http://themoderatevoice.com/59182/brown-coakley-and-a-confession/ [...]
[...] Abel is a moderate. But earlier this week, he decided he was going to switch his registration from Independent to Democrat because he’s [...]