Scott Brown Shoving Democrats Toward a Cliff
Unlike the flurry of confetti tossing which has been flooding my twitter feed for days now, I remain unconvinced that the Senate race in Massachusetts is a done deal at this point. Yes, I’ve seen the flurry of polls, some from new upstarts and some from better known entities which show Scott Brown with a growing lead outside the margins. But I also keep an eye on Nate Silver, who still rates it as a toss-up. Nate may be a shameless Democratic cheerleader, but he’s still one of the smartest guys in the room when it comes to reading poll data and prognosticating based on those numbers.
But no matter where the chips fall at 8 p.m eastern time tomorrow, one thing is for sure… Scott Brown is within hours of grabbing a huge chunk of votes – if not winning outright – in a race where, in happier times, he shouldn’t have had any business pulling more than 30%. The reasons for this can be boiled down to three little things… jobs, health care and spending. And the three of them are now inextricably entwined.
Will the Democrats learn any lessons from this? Possibly, but it seems a bit late for that now. Obama, Reid and Pelosi seem to be locked on course to get their agenda pushed through and that line was dug too deeply in the sand to back away from it now. Talk is already swirling around D.C. water fountains of how health care can be pushed through with only 51 votes if Brown actually kicks Coakley to the curb and busts the Democrats’ 60 vote super-majority margin. It’s a keystone of that Democratic agenda I mentioned, but the party leadership still seems oblivious to the fact that their agenda isn’t terribly popular among a public currently consumed with worries about paying their mortgage next month and keeping food on the table.
But while Scott Brown is pushing Democrats toward a cliff, is he also shoving the Republicans into a slightly larger tent? After a season of headhunting in the GOP where moderates and “RINOs” have been lined up against the wall, Brown is drawing huge support and millions of dollars per day from across the nation. But he isn’t a conservative who really passes the purity test, is he? Rick Moran wrote quite eloquently about it this weekend at Pajamas Media, where he examined Scott’s record and various position statements. Yes, Brown is a fiscal conservative who speaks the language of small government near and dear to many of our hearts. But he’s also “moderately pro-choice” on the abortion issue, (yes, there is such a thing. It’s my position also) and he opposed the Iraq war. Heck, if he was running for President I’d probably pack my bags and follow him across the nation like a Grateful Dead groupie.
Is he changing the attitude of some of the party purists? I was, as usual, moderating an online chat during Ed Morrissey’s show on Friday and I put that very question to the participants. Many of them were the very same ones who had savaged Dede Scozzafava in NY-23 last year and frequently referred to RINOs using terms not suitable for family viewing. The response was surprising. There were multiple admissions that Brown was “close enough on the points that count” and “the best we’re ever going to get out of Mass.”
Pressing further, I got a sense that reality was settling in to the Republican ranks, at least in some quarters. What if Charlie Crist wins the primary in Florida? Marco Rubio is hugely popular with the hard core conservatives, but if the voters of Florida select Crist, not only will Rubio support him, but many of these conservatives seem ready to concede that giving a seat at the table to a more moderate Republican may indeed be better than putting yet another Democrat in Washington.
Tomorrow’s election is going to be “special” in more than name. The Democrats have realized that they picked a not very special candidate to run in it. And Scott Brown may be the special kind of Republican who will steer the GOP back off the rocks of purity driven purging and on to a winning path. Good luck, Scott. Whether you pull this thing off or not, you ran one heck of a race and opened a lot of eyes.
40 Responses to “Scott Brown Shoving Democrats Toward a Cliff”
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by TMV, Jazz Shaw. Jazz Shaw said: New Column up: http://bit.ly/8WPOJE How Scott Brown is shoving Democrats off a cliff. [...]
Those are certainly good reasons, but there is another significant factor that can't be ignored, and that has to do with the seeds of cynicism and distrust that the GOP (and it's entertainment branch) have worked overtime to sow in the electorate – something that goes all the way back to Reagan. The propaganda I'm talking about is that governent is inherently evil, or at least inherently incompetent and as such is the natural enemy of free enterprise, the people – and especially the enemy of an ideology that started taking a dark turn back when I could still do a handspring. Yes, I'm getting afield from the Brown vs Coakley race, but the mindset I'm talking about has been deliberately cultured and is every bit as much a factor in this race as is the economy that was on Obama's plate when he took the oath of office. The culture of cynicism and distrust I'm talking about has been earned to some degree and is not without validity, but only to the extent that no government is perfect and will only be as good as the people who are trying to make it work. When people are working to make it fail, whether because of homage to an ideology – or from endless soaking in the aforementioned culture of cynicism – even when they may not think they are working for failure, then of course it starts becoming real. I often make pitches here for longer memories and for less constricted interpretations of history, because I understand how easy it is for people to jump on a bandwagon without really knowing where it's been or indeed where it's going. I hope cooler heads (and longer memories) prevail tomorrow.
Jazz, this may not be the right thread to have this discussion, but when I read your words, “Will the Democrats learn any lessons from this?” the first thing I think of, “So you're okay with calling anyone who doesn't consider themselves a Democrat- in MA or elsewhere, not sure of your intended reach – lazy, previously unengaged, previously irrelevant, previously lacking power or not using it? What?”
I do get why “The Democrats” need to understand the implications of the moves made by Brown and those who decided to support him or just “not Coakley.” And I'm glad you write, “s he also shoving the Republicans into a slightly larger tent?” although I don't think that is in fact the case. I think “The Republicans” are simply concentrating themselves around a very specific core.
But honestly, since Obama was elected, I see the engagement and actions taken by “not Obama” people to be far more momentous than anything the Democrats might discover about themselves as a result of the engagement in the process by right of center folks, post 1/09.
From Jill:
“So you're okay with calling anyone who doesn't consider themselves a Democrat- in MA or elsewhere, not sure of your intended reach – lazy, previously unengaged, previously irrelevant, previously lacking power or not using it? What?“
I hate to say this, but I honestly don't understand exactly what it is that you're asking here. I was asking if Democrats (and by inference, their independent, progressive allies) would learn anything from such a presumably safe seat falling into danger in one of the nation's arguably bluest states. And further, asking if the GOP would learn that they can't run a hard core, bible belt, purity test Republican in every state and district of the nation. Who was I calling lazy or unengage?
Jazz, the only lesson there I can see is to never rest on your laurels. The democrats can hardly afford to let their concentration slip when swimming in shark infested waters.
The answer to the question “Will the Democrats learn any lessons from this?”…………is effectively “No” based on the comments above and elsewhere from the lefties.
There is no acknowledgement anywhere in the lefty blogosphere that the lefty agenda is turning voters off….rather, oh, it is because we didn't take the liberal agenda far enough this past year.
Secondly, it is always a predictable talking point deflection to “the other guys left us with a mess…oh, woe is me”.
The result is they will lose more elections, be it tomorrow or later in the year, and still post on this blog as if there is nothing unappealing about their agenda to a growing segment of voters.
Born and Bred in Mass I have been watching this race with fascination. People are disgruntled with what's happening in Washington, and Scott Brown is the right Republican for Massachusetts. He wouldn't necessarily win a Florida race, but he doesn't have to….we have Marco Rubio for that. Marco Rubio has won every straw poll by a landslide and, just as you saw the “Scott Brown locomotive” run over Martha Coakly in the past few weeks, we are seeing that here. Crist has vacillated on too many issues and sways with the “political wind” that he hoped would push him to Washington. He miscalculated. The Dems miscalculated. The Rubio “train” has much momentum here…it will be impossible to stop it. Crist should start looking for office space and go back to practicing law. My bet is that his political career is over.
Sorry, Jazz – I should not have written “calling” – that was too colloquial for comments because it's really the kind of thing more common if we were having this discussion face to face – my apologies.
What I should have written which is what I was meaning to ask was – so you're okay with suggesting/implying/leading to an inference that anyone who does not consider themselves a Democrat was previously unengaged etc.
I read what you wrote as absolutely having that implication. It may not be what you were thinking – that's why I'm asking. But I find this to be the case in all the opining about “what it means” for Democrats that so many folks who are not Democrats (and some Democrats too to be fair) are all of a sudden getting active. I've seen a number of items written by right of center folks that talk about this in one way or another: saying that they will now use Obama's election year model to get people involved, to tap those they want to tap. The use and rise of the Twitterverse and the #tcot stuff, The Next Right and other efforts. The Tea Party gatherings themselves.
I see those events as being far more seminal and worth unpacking as far as meaning than wondering what the Dems will do about that.
Maybe it's just the sociologist in me, but I see the movement to act in ways they've never really acted before in as powerful a way as ever is far more fascinating and in need of attention than what the Dems will learn from the fact that so many people who previously were just content to give money and vote are now coming out and speaking up. Scary as what a lot of them say is to me, it's still a phenomenon, I think anyway. What the Dems learn? Never underestimate the power of anger and not getting your way. /a little sarcasm
And I guess I should add – I think the folks becomign active? I don't believe that they were ever people who would be Democrats or right of center to begin with – so I don't know that the Dems should spend much time trying to figure out what there is to learn about that group.
Maybe living in Ohio where the share of Independents has always been significant makes me feel that way – it's too political to work to appeal to Independents. Understand what they say is important to them, hope that what you have to offer fits with that, be consistent and honest in your message and that's the best you can expect. Otherwise, you feed yourself into a hypocritical future.
Ok – lol – last one: yeah, reading the others' comments here, we're asking and answering the wrong question. I don't believe the focus should be on the Dems, I believe the focus should be on the percentage of Americans deciding to get involved in a way they've never been involved before. There's just a huge shift going on – Obama benefited from it in 2008 but now there's a countervailing engagement on the right.
What the Dems learn is a far more academic question, if I were being asked. But you know, I'm just one.
Jazz, you make some valid and insightful observations.
Your description of Brown as being more at the edge of the Republican Party is interesting and true, but also misleading in some respects. The philosophical base of the GOP, prior to the social conservatives gaining ascendancy and dominating the party, was very much in line with most of the positions her ascribe to Mr. Brown. The classical liberal, old right, libertarian, non-interventionist, fiscal conservative elements of the GOP are not gone, but have been overshadowed and overwhelmed for many years. However, in the past few years we have witnessed a resurgence of these elements as they struggle to regain their rightful place at the GOP table, despite the resistance of the social conservative, social engineering, big government, foreign adventurist, Keynesians.
I would argue that many of the long time traditional party purists (as you put it), while they may have some real philosophical and policy differences with Mr. Brown, actually see him as not that far from what many of them would describe as the traditional party base. Even the tea party activists and supporters, whose primary concerns include fiscal responsibility, limited government and respect for the Constitution, could reasonably consider Mr. Brown an ally.
What is happening with the GOP may be more accurately described re-accessing the wings of the big tent. Whether they close again, or even walk away eventually, who is to say?
It is not only the GOP that has factionalism issues. Fissures in the Democratic Party have been growing by the day, with the moderate, near-left, far-left and the peace / non-interventionists challenging the actions and policy choices of the party leadership since the 2008 election. Every element envisions them self as being one that is vital to success, and if they are asked to lay aside a core concern for the good of the party, eventually grow resentful and unsupportive.
The blinders on the Democratic Party leadership will most likely remain in place, no matter what happens in Massachusetts on Tuesday. If the race is close on Tuesday, and particularly if Mr. Brown wins, the factionalism within the party will increase and not even the zealous Congressional leadership or the President will be able to hold it together for long. Therefore, it is a lesson the party leadership does not want to see taught.
It proves that nothing kills political victories like political victories, and nothing creates political victories like political defeats.
Scott Brown is a freight train running downhill. Get out of the way. The House and Senate Dems have already walked the blank. The “people” are taking back their country.
I don't understand the phrase “the people are taking back their country” when a politician wins or is winning. From my vantage point, none of these pols (on a federal level) are representing people. Coakley and Brown look the same to me: the same.
The Democrats have taken themselves over a cliff, or at least wrecked themselves. Health care was just a symptom of failure after they tried doing too much (wrong), too quickly, all year.
Add to that, that the Dem candidate is tainted, by the sex scandal Massachusetts faced years ago.
Add to that, that the “reform” legislation flirts with levying new taxes on makers of medical devices, a modern industry that surprisingly has a home where? Massachusetts, of all places.
“the people are taking back their country”
Politicians in Washington this year have made one decision after another not supported by anyone but the far left (and even some of them never are satisfied with whatever Washington in its current or in any form attempts). They have routinely behaved not only inimically to us but notably as though they were totally out of touch with what we want, and have made clear what we want — and at times, they have even behaved as though they know what we want and have deberately defied us (the House energy legislation, based on leftist environmentalist poiltics, that the public jammed communication channels to Congress expressing their opposition to, which they approved anyway, is an example of this).
“Scott Brown is a freight train running downhill.”
The Dems can thank themselves not only for having created the gradient, but also for removing the brakes and applying engine power.
“Will the Democrats learn any lessons from this?”
So far the answer appears to be No. They aren't admitting that they have been wrong this year, that they made many bad decisions, chose to go too far left, and do too much wrong, too quickly. What we're likely to continue to see is not only no honest grasp of the reality, but continued attacks on others — that Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy (the rejectionist MAINSTREAM PUBLIC).
“The propaganda I'm talking about is that governent is inherently evil, or at least inherently incompetent and as such is the natural enemy of free enterprise, the people – and especially the enemy of an ideology that started taking a dark turn back when I could still do a handspring”
Inherently evil no…..government is way too incompetant to be inherently evil. Power hungry for sure…but not evil.
How do I form this conclusion…..becuase I deal with government officials every day for I am a Civil Engineer by trade. We get Local, State and Federal permits. We deal with Government inspectors, Government reviewers, and Government Politicians.
And I have found government workers to be generally lazy and incompetant. I have seen lazy and incompetant people attempting to work in the private sector and….as the joke goes….my colleagues and I wil point out….”There is another future government employee”. And we are almost always right at a startling percentage. Bureacracy breeds laziness and incompetance.
So…before you post baseless garbage….go out to the real world.
“it is because we didn't take the liberal agenda far enough this past year”
These people are orders of magnitude out of touch with reality. It's certainly no “excuse” for them to become demotivated, not vote, and concede even more to reality in the form of even more future GOP victories.
The only mistake for normal people to be wary of is to misinterpret this election (as with others that made the news last year) as another 1994. It simply isn't, any more than it is with health care.
This is a decent article. I believe if the Republicans return to their core message of smaller gov't and fiscally responsibility and allow socially liberal people a seat at the table…..that will be a winner.
I will point out that Charlie “Stimulus Sympathizer” Crist is a big spender. He would be better as a Democrat. And I live in Florida.
Republicans are nihilists at this point. Lower taxes and no spending cuts for everyone. Less government intrusion and more treatment of homosexuals as second-class citizens. Less government power but more waterboarding and Orwellian screaming about terrorists (as Krauthammer knows, if you just say “terrorism” over and over and scare people American will win). All the medicare for “our” demographics and no plans to help with soaring costs for families. No meaning anywhere, just hunger for power.
The current reform bill is pretty much what many wonks on the right saw as acceptable before Obama had the audacity to defeat their candidates. Now that bill is essentially kitten rape to them. These people used to be average hypocrites. But seeing Obama winning has ruptured all their inhibitions. They are now sick in their minds and the voters of MA seem prone to reward them for their utter lack of shame and philosophical coherence.
Evil nature of government comes into play with these public sector unions. Look at the schools and any other department that is heavily unionized. Unions are sucking the government funds dry. Why can't we hire competent people in the government jobs?
This leads to the deal that was just made with the unions, making them exempt from the health care tax. Once government get large they start controlling and voting themselves in and the result is bloated government feeding on taxes.
True that we need some government but then it should not be allowed to get too big that taxpayers don't have a voice. Government should serve the people not feed on the, again for example union deal that was made last week.
Look at california the government and bloated to the extend that they can't pass a reasonable budget, again big unions are in control. I think this is what Reagan was against.
Thanks Jim for your insightful comment. Have you ever heard of parity? The talent goes where the money is. When the private sector started getting much more highly rewarded than the government sector, the talent pool shifted. This isn't rocket science. Back to your drawing board…
By the way, there was an excellent interview with Thomas Frank on Bill Moyers Journal recently that discussed this very concept, that of attitudes toward government – how it is perceived and why:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01152010/watc…
Even those who might choose to discount the interview soley from a partisan perspective could learn something from watching. I say that based on a few of the comments I'm reading here. If you can read faster than you can watch then your'e in luck – the transcript is there also. Knock yourselves out!
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by TMV: Scott Brown Shoving Democrats Toward a Cliff: Unlike the flurry of confetti tossing which has been flooding my twi… http://bit.ly/7UzBsR...
I see….so your solution is to spend more money that we do not have. And that will make everything Peachy.
Reminds me of the thinking when passing the so-called stimulus boondoggle. Lets keep spending money on failures in the hope something will work.
And if the Government spends more money for this so-called talent you speak of where will all the lazy bureacrats go.
So…before you post baseless garbage….go out to the real world.”
Yup. And think FNMA, FDMC. They think they can run HC, 1/7th of the economy. Ha.
BTW: I think NASA was pretty good, and there are probably others.
“Inherently evil no”
Necessary evil, yes. This has always been so. What we're missing is that it hasn't viewed in this normal, correct, healthy way with an eye toward the need to strictly define and limit, or constrain it and what it represents and in effect is, authority, power over people.
Republicans are nihilists at this point.”
A Rep. nihilist is a optimist who was mugged on his way to church, decided to become a cynic and was taxed too much by a “progressive” government. He now finds liberals to be purveyors of over-reaching social rearrangements. (Also, advises fewer espressos be consumed by ranters.)
“Republicans are nihilists at this point.”
I'm not surprised you'd get this wrong, too, and even misappropriate a word that's been used correctly elsewhere. Radicalization of liberalism since the 1960s has included nihilism as well as self-loathing and self-destructive motives as part of its pathologies.
The correct term that could be used here is “obstructionists,” which was misused all this past year (along with silliness such as “the Party of No”), but of course that would also be misuse of words, which again, is no surprise.
If Coakley loses, the lies about what it “means” or “why” Coakley already is losing (rather than correctly identifying her as a poor candidate and the general problem of Dems going too far left this past year, which has wrecked their health care “reform” effort, about which they're not done yet preparing to be unethical in salvaging) will continue, and may even dwarf the lies we've heard already.
* * *
“it should not be allowed to get too big that taxpayers don't have a voice”
This past year, Washington Dems haven't behaved as if they haven't been listening, and when they have heard (the energy legislation the House) they ignored or defied what they heard.
Part of what taxpayers have objected to is the vast growth in spending and growth in the federal government's size and scope — with threats of more to come.
Back to your drawing board…”
Good advice for the Dems.
Latest Dem outrage: Have you ever been a union member. I have, and didn't realize at the time, that I was better than non-union people. Wow, it took the O government to point that out. This tax-exempt HI Cadilac carve out for the unions makes Nelson look like a choir boy, and there are more union voters than people in Nebraska. Brilliant, and as a recent NYT editorial pointed out: this will help lower HC costs (throw up sound).
In Masschusetts, unlike last year in the USA, there now is real Hope [tm] for real Change [tm].
Note who's intrigued, and who's alarmed, at the prospect of this.
No, my solution is to get the best talent we can in government – but only if we expect government to produce according to our expectations, otherwise we'll only get more of the same. Competition is good no? We spend plenty on everything else (think military industrial complex for example) with questionable returns based on usage. I would expect this to be a no-brainer. I go back to my original point, and that has to do with the wish on the part of one ideology to run govt. into the ground, presumably to benefit the fantasy of an unfettered free market (which we've seen often throughout history as a failed ploy). Think self-fulfilling prophecy here.
Think self-fulfilling prophecy here. Bottom line, competition is good, if competition is not one of the components of government, then we'll get less competence and ability, less positive results, and probably more cynicism, polarization, and non-productive pendulum swinging between parties.”
Your point is? Competition such as FNMA/FDMC driving banks out of contention in the mortgage business with taxpayer bucks, and lifting pay caps for them.
GM with HI tax exemption for union people vs. Toyota's non-union people?. Bigger agencies like the counter intelligence conglomerate? Block reinstatement of Glass-Steagall? Slip in a punitive tax on BIG banks that won't affect the depositors by one penny? Etc.
Not sure how much more easily I could spell it out. Simple cause and effect stuff. Regulation is critical, we've had more than ample opportunity to see that, and yet there is insuffcient regulation in not only the banking industry, but in the food industry as well. Those are HUGE areas that effect everyone, needless to say. Who is resistant to regulation and believes the free market will police and regulate itself? Who is that naive? When it comes to talent, you (ultimately) get what you pay for. If you want corporate lobbyists to run the govt. then we are well on our way. I'd prefer to see govt. as a desirable career choice by those who have vision, talent, and motivation. In case you haven't noticed, the present system isn't working.
Jazz this was IMO the best article I have read so far on the current political atmosphere. I may comment here tomorrow after the election but I am to much of a coward to stick my neck out now with a prediction. Just wanted to let you know how much I appreciate your work.
Thanks, Cat! How refreshing to read something besides what a total idiot I am from the left!
Not sure how much more easily I could spell it out.'
Exactly, as I pointed out, can't make it much clearer:
NON-Competition such as FNMA/FDMC driving banks out of contention in the mortgage business with taxpayer bucks, and lifting pay caps for them.
GM with HI tax exemption for union people vs. Toyota's non-union people?. Bigger agencies like the counter intelligence conglomerate? Block reinstatement of Glass-Steagall? Slip in a punitive tax on BIG banks that won't affect the depositors by one penny? Etc.
JS said: “the present system isn't working.” This is big gov. at work.
You are very welcome. Just remember the ones calling you an idiot are the ones needing the message the most. For me its sad to the Party I once loved hell bent on destroying itself.
I glad Mr. Duck brought up Glass-Steagall. When I first heard the phrase “too big to fail” I thought why did the government let them get too big? I thought banks were in fact regulated to stop just such a thing happening. Then I heard about Glass-Steagall being repealed so that investment banks could be combined with commercial banks. I’ll let my liberal side out here and say break the SOBs up. Don’t ever let the folly of greedy Wall Streator’s hurt the American people again. Let true completion prevail in banking not the monopolistic practices of the greedy. Plus smaller companies pay smaller bonuses for CEO’s another pet peeve of mine. Enough, end of rant.