The worm is turning. Now for the real question: is it too late? Are we left with ugly but self-interested politicians, who run for the middle – or elitist Neo-Pros, who take Chicago politics to a new level? 2010’s going to be a bumpy ride…
More here.
Teri L says:
How is the worm turning, Sean? To me it’s just rocks and hard places. Just because one alternative is better than another, doesn’t make either of them right or good or best.
Seems to me voters are simply doing damage control right now, voting for the lesser of two evils and that sucks as a form of policy.
January 20, 2010 — 6:11 am
Tom Johnson says:
The first sign of Massachusetts backbone since the Battle of Bunker Hill.
January 20, 2010 — 7:05 am
Greg Swann says:
> The first sign of Massachusetts backbone since the Battle of Bunker Hill.
Another way of thinking of yesterday’s upset is as a plebiscite-by-proxy. Scott Brown and the conservative media successfully nationalized the race, and the citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts got to express the country’s will, a national referendum on Obama. This is a new (and clumsy) form of representative government made possible by mass communications.
It will be interesting to see what happens next. If there is to be a Reichstag fire, I would expect it to happen now. And if that happens, all hell will break loose.
Here’s the kicker, for me: I think this was a referendum on fair play. Americans are not thoughtful people. Rotarian Socialism is an obvious disaster to anyone who thinks about it for even an instant. But Americans don’t like cheaters, chiselers or bullies. As much as people might want to paint this as a rejection of Marxism, I think it is more a rejection of the bad behavior of Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Franks, etc. IOW, nothing fundamental has changed.
January 20, 2010 — 7:34 am
Sean Purcell says:
Teri – How is the worm turning, Sean? People seem to be waking up from the almost religious stupor they exhibited in 2008.
Greg – Agreed, turning the MA race into a national referendum was a smart (and as it turns out successful) move. By the end Brown was collecting $1,000,000/day in donations. “New (and clumsy)” yes, but necessary as we are currently constructed. Any nod toward states’rights has been diminished greatly. We can no longer “vote with our feet” on most issues so every state is their brother’s keeper. I pray this same tactic will be used as effectively for CA’s elections. Otherwise you and everyone else in this great nation will be ponying up big $$ for the utter failure of this state to suppress it’s progressive folly.
Also agreed that this was as much about fair play as it was anything else. I don’t think health care reform itself was the prime motivator – MA has gone down this road on their own. More likely was their justified fear of having to pay for all of us to enjoy the travesty of universal health care.
Don’t agree that “nothing fundamental has changed” though. The filibuster-proof senate has gone away and that is a very fundamental change. More to your point: I think people are paying more attention than they have in a long time. The question I ask is this: how long will it last? Our attention span is pretty short.
January 20, 2010 — 11:44 am
Greg Swann says:
> More to your point: I think people are paying more attention than they have in a long time.
Indeed. Incidentally, this is a function of unemployment. Obama did himself double-dirt: He pursued job-killing policies and the people he put out of work have had the time to surf the net and discover that they’ve been lied to about collectivism versus individualism all their lives.
If this turns out to be an individualist counter-revolution, then I’m all for it.
January 20, 2010 — 12:17 pm
Sean Purcell says:
the people he put out of work have had the time to surf the net and discover that they’ve been lied to about collectivism versus individualism all their lives.
THIS is why I read BHB. Unemployment causes free time which leads to a political/economic awakening. I don’t know if that ever would have occured to me. Damn that’s good.
January 20, 2010 — 5:01 pm
Greg Swann says:
> I don’t know if that ever would have occured to me.
There’s more. Political upheavals happen when a once-comfortable middle class gets squeezed in to-them humiliating ways. Crushing poverty endures. Long-standing tyranny endures. It’s when people are used to having a certain level of luxury and liberty, suddenly and recently lost, and when they come to believe that a status that is rightfully theirs has been usurped, that they engage in political action aimed at restoring their previous condition. Can take the form of protests, from peaceful to pitchforks, or rebellions more violent. But it’s the sudden loss of wealth/status/prestige/autonomy/etc. that is dispositive.
I will hasten to add that not all rebellions are good rebellions. Once we have let slip the dogs of war, to cite a different play, the ultimate outcome is probably more likely to be worse than better. Pat Robertson is not to be preferred over Obama, at least not to me.
January 20, 2010 — 6:08 pm
Jeff Brown says:
I think one of the principles demonstrated was that even folks in the bluest of blue states eventually tire of the Nanny State.
The laugh of the year came when Scott Brown invoked/lauded Jack Kennedy, not Ronald Reagan for his supply side tax cuts, which turbo charged the economy. Ted had to be spinning in his grave. Classic
January 20, 2010 — 5:48 pm
Doug Quance says:
Even many of those who tend to like European Socialism are not all that keen on the lack of fundamental fairness that the crowd in charge are foisting upon the rest of us.
Most of us are tired of watching pols pick the winners and losers… giving the spoils to the politically connected.
And most of us can’t wait for Nov 2012.
January 20, 2010 — 7:02 pm
Teri Lussier says:
I suppose I’m way too cynical to see this as change I can believe in. It’s a slight tick back to the center of a political ping pong match. Exit polls appear to show that Democratic Brown voters think of him as moderate.
My guess is that MA simply wants things back the way they were about 5 years ago, as opposed to any real change. If they ever grow a pair and give Barney Frank the boot, that’s when I’ll go hmmmm.
January 20, 2010 — 9:39 pm
Brian Brady says:
“And most of us can’t wait for Nov 2012.”
I’m salivating for this November. Goodbye ma’am…errr, Senator
January 21, 2010 — 11:21 pm
Sean Purcell says:
Goodbye ma’am…errr, Senator
Interesting… are you calling the Boxer election?
January 22, 2010 — 12:09 am
Brian Brady says:
I think Boxer is the most vulnerable of the three big federal elections, in CA this November. Pelosi and Waters are in safely, gerrymandered districts.
While the budget imbalance is a state issue, it should leave a bad taste in everyone’s mouth and contribute to the growing discontent with the collectivist movement in the federal gov’t. If CA receives a federal bailout, our cousins in Indiana and Texas will (rightly) scream at Californians for allowing thieves to run rampant in Sacramento.
I think the trick is to find the right, principled candidate to challenge her. I think a failed state finance director or a failed CEO would be the wrong choice.
January 22, 2010 — 8:05 am