Brown, Coakley, and Mea Culpa
So it appears the race to fill the Senate seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy is a toss up. A dead heat. A nail biter.
Or will it be a landslide for Mr. Brown?
At this point, I suppose anything could happen.
A former President could tip the scales for Ms. Coakley. The current President might. And I certainly hope they do, because I’m still rooting for Ms. Coakley, for the same, single-minded reason I articulated Tuesday when I started this accidental series: I want health care reform to pass, and I don’t see how that happens if Mr. Brown is elected.
Even so, I’m less inclined to fret over the outcome today than I was earlier this week. I knew the facts Tuesday, but now I’ve made peace with them: I can’t cast a vote in this race. My other obligations won’t allow me to contribute in any meaningful way to Coakley’s campaign. And even if I could, the voters of Massachusetts will elect the candidate of their choice, not mine or anyone else’s.
I’m also less inclined today than earlier this week to make radical proposals, like bolstering one party (the Democrats) in order to make all parties meaningless. As you might recall, Jim Geraghty suggested that proposal was less than moderate. I countered, on the pages of this blog and in an email to him. But after more time to think about it, plus more time to consider the equally critical perspectives of others — e.g., my friend Dennis Sanders’ point of view — I offer this mea culpa: My original proposal was, in fact, immoderate.
That does not mean this blog is immoderate; this blog is not defined by one writer or one post. Nor does it mean, I’m immoderate; despite my passion on issues such as health care reform and stem-cell research — not to mention my occasional, all-too-human lapses in judgment — I think I’ve otherwise proven my moderate credentials. (You, of course, will be the final judges.)
Regardless, I’m now prepared to admit that the concept of gutting the power of parties by seeking an ultra-super-majority for one party was nothing even close to moderate. I’m also willing to admit that, despite my emotion-driven outburst Tuesday, I will continue to vote (by and large) for individuals rather than parties. I’ll also continue to vote for balance.
Case in point, and this will probably shock my progressive readers: In the 2008 race for Congress in Missouri’s Second Congressional District, the district where I live, I voted for Republican Todd Akin; the very same election in which I voted for Barack Obama. Their politics couldn’t be more different. I’ve already explained ad nauseum why I voted for Obama. I voted for Akin for two reasons: I’m convinced he has integrity and, agree with him or not on every issue, I believe he provides a necessary counterbalance to the current, progressive-inclined office holders from the other two Congressional districts covering the St. Louis Metro-West area.
Of course, none of this changes my attitude toward political parties. I still think they’re more trouble than they’re worth. Nor does this mean I’m willing to accept the premise — expressed by Geraghty in our email exchange and later by one of the commenters on the last installment to this series — that political parties are a function of human nature. I’ll concede that coalitions are a function of human nature. But there’s a difference, I think, between coalitions and parties. Coalitions rise and fall. Parties seem to live on, far past the point of their usefulness.
Net: I will continue to advocate for the abolition of political parties — or, failing that, a reduction in the power and influence of the two major parties — because I consider these parties, as currently constructed, a scourge; they distort the political process through gross oversimplification, the stifling of nuance and the dumbing-down of debate. (Much as I did with my earlier proposal.) But I will not vote all Democrat, nor will I vote all Republican.
Frequent commenter DLS suggested there’s no need to apologize or defend. But I think it’s important I acknowledge what I now consider a mistake. Of course, others might respond that there was no mistake; that I was right the first time. They might also chastise me for backtracking. So be it. Life goes on. But this series of posts, hopefully, does not.
15 Responses to “Brown, Coakley, and Mea Culpa”
TMV is packed with liberals who think they are moderates but so what? Still a good place to debate and discuss imo, and liberals can't stand a level playing field so if it were truly moderate you'd probably lose 80% of your participants.
There are folks around here that think I'm some sort of Evil Neanderthal at best but it's a rare election that I don't split my ticket. Liberals vote for a Republican and want to be given a medal for it when they “confess”. Yes, it's true! lol
Pete, you are fine. Only a genius or an idiot can make sense of this mess. Normal is to question and put in earplugs to keep from joining the people marching to the “true beat”.
You're doing just fine, Pete. You're a Brookings or establishmentarian liberal who will consider a safe and sane Republican over too brightly and hotly flaming a lefty Democrat. (You might well have joined a number of us who were ready to vote for Colin Powell for President years ago.)
“I will not vote all Democrat, nor will I vote all Republican.”
Welcome to the club. In addition to the occasional odd non-major, there's always the house-cleaning strategic decision (current-election tactical nuclear option), which is to punish a (major) party gone awry by voting for the other. (Why not, also, ask cynics, if one is just a weak version of the other?) The rest of the time, given our current system, it's often a defensive game, Lesser of Two Evils Chosen.
1. “Or will it be a landslide for Mr. Brown?”
I don't think so. It will be remarkable that he would win in Massachusetts, but I believe it will be close. (Obama may visit the state to speak on behalf of the Democrat. That's a big political risk, and if Brown wins it's a setback for Obama and for the Dems, but not catastrophic, just more of a set of signs of a need to revise Dem strategy. I am curious if the Dem turnout is low — disenchanted or discouraged Obama voters, as in previous “surprise” elections — or if Massachusetts is being affected by the threat of new health care “reform” taxes on medical devices, a tech-glam industry in that state.)
2. It's not another 1994. To add to the critique of the GOP:
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Articl…
TMV is packed with liberals who think they are moderates but so what?
Just as it is packed with conservatives who think the center-right is the liberal left, because anything to the left of them must be THE left.
“Just as it is packed with conservatives”
“Split” — you forgot to use this, the best fake-wedge, fake-evenness word. “Split among liberals and conservatives” (deliberately misused about experts and nuclear power, generously unused where it's appropriate, related to climate politics)
* * *
Note on the Massachusetts election:
“I am curious if the Dem turnout is low — disenchanted or discouraged Obama voters, as in previous “surprise” elections — or if Massachusetts is being affected by the threat of new health care “reform” taxes on medical devices, a tech-glam industry in that state.”
I said nothing about it earlier, but do people know the tainted history of the Dem candidate? It makes one wonder why she was run, and shows additional desperation on Obama and Bill Clinton's part, as well as other Dem leaders, in their efforts to support (save?) her. It also reminds us of the real nature of government and what it means for those who lend support to someone associated with government that behaves in the way it did with Coakley. The point, too, is that it's probably reducing Dem voter support, hopefully, with at least some people in Massachusetts.
The role played by the U.S. Senate candidate in a notorious sex case raises questions about her judgment. [and that of the Dem leadership supporting or defending her campaign, and what it means about how they all may run Washington]
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487…
No sweat Pete, your honesty and willingness to think outside the box are a refreshing change from the predictable wornout positioning we see plenty of. In any case, my impression has usually been that you lean conservative – albeit in a more reasoned way than most present day GOP behavior. Keep up the good work.
I never thought you were evil.
Both parties are doing their best to make themselves irrelevant and meaningless except to their extreme wings. The rising political force in this country are Independents who really decide the outcome of almost any election. Independents are not a party they come in all sorts of political sizes and shapes. They don't spend money on stupid scripted conventions where the outcome is already known. Nor do they browbeat their members and or bribe them into voting a certain way on pending legislation.
I'm a former Democrat who became unaffiliated last spring due the the way the DNC handled the primaries and imo gave Hillary the shaft. I was told good riddance by Obama supporters and thought ok they don't want me in their party anyway. I was a true loyal Democrat for forty years voted a straight Democratic ticket in every Presidential election, until this year, and the party doesn't want me. Unless I repent my ways, accept super delegates and support whoever the party leadership forces down my throat.
Now a spend happy Democratic majority bent on passing a health care bill by whatever means possible. Even if the bill itself is so flawed that it will not accomplish much of what most people want in health care reform. The Dems won't even talk to the Republicans about the bill and no compromise is possible. I want a good health care bill, one that is well thought out and much debated between all sides of the issue. Therefore I hope that Brown wins the election Tuesday. I hope the congress will take health care back to the the drawing board and pass a bill which will actually help the people of this country and not just their party.
Very few of the commentors on TMV fall squarely into one pure political class. Most of us have an issue or two in which we oppose our natural party alignment. Keeps it interesting.
I do think Coakley will pull this one out, just barely. Could be wrong, though. It will be close.
Vera,
Great post. I'll be back to read stuff on this site regularly, based on the type of people who you said frequent this blog.
New Cat, I appreciate your disappointment with democrats for not running the primaries the way you would have liked, however punishing them because HRC isn't now the president is counterproductive. Clinton herself would agree with me on this I'm sure. As for your hope about the failure of healthcare reform (so that it goes back to the drawing board), well… that is a desirable idea in many ways, but that hypothetical drawing board action could easily be delayed another couple decades if it fails. Better a small improvement now, a foot in the door, than another 20 years of a steadily failing system. Be careful what you wish for.
I gave you a 'like' for bringing teh funneh on that one JS, lol
Hey, I'm just glad you can still laugh after your ill-fated voyage in the MR thread.
In fairness though, my response to New Cat is dead-on. If you don't think so, which aspect of it would you take issue with?
A little correction to a reply from J Spencer. I am not disappointed with HRC not being the President. I am no longer a Democrat because I don't like the parties undemocratic policies especially in how they handle primaries, but not limited to those policies alone. I have no illusions of grandeur which would lead me to believe I personally could punish the vast Democratic Party. I simply made a personal decision to leave the party I no longer feel the organization represents me but rather the whims of its more liberal members. HRC has made her decision to remain in the party and even become a part of the Obama administration. Thats her choice, she is not a guru to me only someone who I once supported, largely due to my admiration of her husband. I probably would not support her again in another election.
I think the current health bill will create so many problems that it will devastate many people in this county. No bill is better than a bad bill. Passing this health bill is not an improvement it is disaster in the making.
Go Senator Brown.