I was wrong. I have to figure out a way to debase myself in front of my parties and elections students to whom I said two or three times "Scott Brown has no chance". I was wrong.
In my defense, I did say that he was a very good candidate. But he couldn't win. I said that Coakley was the perfect demographic candidate for the primary (one woman, three men, had a head start -- short campaign) but not a great candidate -- in all that I was right -- but I thought she would win. I was wrong.
Almost everyone was wrong -- and some of those who were right are of the "all clocks are right twice a day" variety of right -- and very few people are owning up to it. The press is full of "the national media did not anticipate" -- just say it authors, you were wrong. You had no idea. You turned in your copy without looking and looked ahead to the next story. You were wrong. At least there is a lot of company.
Why? First of all, it isn't irrational to be wrong. The data, history, and early polls all reinforced the inevitable Coakley victory. Some of it -- maybe a lot -- has to do with the campaign.
Brian McGrory, in an funny if condescending article article in the Globe captures the campaign differences -- with Brown as the handsome stranger who captivates us by paying attention to our conversation at a party.
But it is also about issues -- and larger patterns of American politics. David Broder argues that Americans like a "supportive but not imperious government. His advice
"If I were President Obama, I would spend the next year showing how government can serve a humble, helpful and supportive role to the central institutions of American life. Even in blue states like Massachusetts, voters want a government that is energetic but limited — a servant, not a leviathan."
Although I think Brooks in on to some thing, I'm not sure what humble means -- we already have an enormous and powerful government and could never get rid of it -- it always surprises me when conservatives seem to deny this obvious fact -- but it also amazes me that liberals still look for top down national solutions in the face of their unpopularity.
But whatever it was, a diffuse sense of anger at the world, a poor campaign, opposition to health care -- a great republican campaign run by a talented and experienced group of republican operatives -- all of them are true-- Massachusetts has a Republican senator. What does this mean? Given that I was so wrong about the election, let me now attempt to be wrong about this as well. Here are a series of random thoughts.
Republicans will over interpret this election just like Democrats over interpreted the Obama victory. The interesting race last year was Clinton v Obama -- it was a high personal and political drama more than a contest of ideas. The general election was fairly close to a given. The Bush administration was largely seen as having failed at providing solutions to problems and they wanted to give someone else a chance. Obama's personality, ideology, and campaign all helped in his victory -- but it was a rejection, not an affirmation.
Americans are getting very hard to govern - if we take governance as actually "doing something". Obama did act quickly to pass a stimulus package (in a way different from what Bush would have been done but utilizing a precedent set by the Bush administration). There was (and should have been) an air of emergency about the economy. Aside from that, he has been given remarkably little time to work through his agenda. Talk all now seems to focus on the "fairness and democracy" of 41 senators (Scott Brown's chant "41" "41") stopping things. Past republican criticism for special rules for minorities has now changed to a concentrated concern for minority protection in the US senate. When our government debate is about overcoming a small minority in our already elected bodies, action is in the waiting room while process is given the interview -- and the job.
Obama has been far too nice. Here is a man elected by a reasonable majority -- elected to do something different -- and with an overwhelming majority in the house and the senate and his party can't pass their centerpiece legislation? If I was them, I would stuff it down the throats of republicans using every procedural trick they can -- the republicans would.
The democrats have no balls in this case. People don't care at all about process (for long -- sometimes they do in the short term) they care about results. If Democrats really believe in health care reform pass it and let the results speak for themselves -- people may well really like it once it isn't a theory any more. I'd rather lose defending an action then lose defending a possibility. Does anyone seriously think that Dems won't be attacked for supporting health care reform whether it passes or not? Do the right thing and let the chips fall where they may (I am not at all sure about the health care reform bill -- but if I was a supporter I would take the stance listed above). concern for minority rights and fairness have now appeared in new.
The Brown election will increase Democratic retirements and improve the quality of Republicans who decide to seek office. Good politicians are professionals and a professional knows when she has a chance to win. Brown's victory alters their calculations in the "if it can happen there" mode. A combination of dem retirments and better rep candidates reinforces the normal off-party gain -- and the Republicans pick up more seats.
Local MA republicans should now have a better poll of candidates as well -- although the party has never been good in translating such gains locally -- my gut feeling is that Deval Patrick and the House and Senate Dems (very few of whom have any real campaign experience) are in serious trouble.
The election of Brown may help Obama in Afghanistan. The Massachusetts electorate even applauded his support of waterboarding -- and may be yet another signal that despite a new and very different face, American foreign policy may not undergo a drastic change.
The republicans may do well in the mid-term elections but I still believe that they have a fundamental problem. Generational change on moral questions, and an aging and restive religious right, seriously hampers their national coalition. Being against Obama is a great short term strategy (unless he succeeds -- see above) but in the long run they need a broad, governing agenda -- and the coalition that was successful starting with Reagan is not what it was. Even Brown may find it hard to win re-election in liberal Massachusetts. One danger for the right is that this will be seen as reinforcing their agenda and they will, like the Democrats did in this campaign (It is rumored Coakley mocked Brown for shaking hands outside of a special Bruins game held outside of Fenway park and that she didn't know Curt Schilling played for the Red Sox -- both bizarre in the extreme if true) ignore the local elements of the campaign. They may well overreach and find, when they do, that there is no broad voter support there for a national campaign.
When I give my talk in Jakarta it will be to a largely Indonesian audience in love with President Obama. They have recently built a statue of him here (as a child, releasing a butterfly -- it is above -- I can't figure out how to place the picture in a different place) I will tell them that the Presidency is an institution and not a person. As human beings we naturally gravitate toward evaluating personality and character, but that elected officials are limited by public opinion, culture, and the power of other institutional leaders.
I will also say that the US is now experiencing rapid political change -- it has only been one year from the Obama inaugural to the Brown election; the change those two events suggest is startling -- but I think they both share in common a general discontent -- a discontent -- even anger -- that Obama didn't create -- but that he hasn't erased.
No comments:
Post a Comment