Why Did Brown Win?
9 Comments Published by DanM January 20th, 2010 in National and International Issues.The loss of a Senate seat that never should have been lost tells us something fundamental.
If you have looked at the headlines at all, you have seen that, since Ted Kennedy’s old seat went to a conservative Republican, we’re back to deadlock in Congress. If they paid off the fencesitter from Connecticut and enough “Dino’s” (Democrats in Name Only), there was at least the possibility of passing legislation. Since the Party of No votes as a monolithic block, now there isn’t.
The most interesting question to me is, “Why did it happen?” You have to believe that since Kennedy, one of the most liberal Senators, won the seat nine times, there has to be a fairly solid block of liberal voters there. How did his officially annointed successor lose?
Here are some reasons that occur to me.
- The election wasn’t about Brown versus Coakley. It was about Obama.
In fact, Brown himself seems to be about the only person willing to say out loud that it’s about anything else. For whatever reason – and there are even deeper and more shadowy thoughts to think about that – a lot of voters in Massachusetts decided that this was their delayed chance to vote against Obama. The last time around, even though McCain would never have agreed, the election was about Bush. Democrats were energized at the prospect of getting rid of him and Republicans were deeply embarrassed by him. McCain, with his “bottom of the class” playboy record of taking bribes, crashing airplanes, and ditching a faithful wife for a rich hieress, looked like Bush 2. Palin made it all even worse.
But in Massachusetts, voters could reject Obama without thinking that they were really just voting for Bush again. And a lot of them did.
- It’s still possible to buy an election in America. The health industry just did it.
The possibility of stopping Obama’s health reform with just one election removed all the stops. Big pharma had pledged to refund $80 billion to American consumers … if Obama’s bill passed. $80 billion will buy a lot of congressmen. Investors started bidding up health stocks as soon as the news was in. Since trading in Europe is half a day ahead of New York, Britain’s Finanacial Times reported the news first. When London markets opened, GlaxoSmithKline immediately added 1.2 per cent. Takeda Pharmaceutical is Asia’s biggest drugmaker but they make 41 per cent of their sales in North America. They added 1.7 per cent. Astellas Pharmaceutical climbed 2.7 per cent. German drugs distributor Celesio went up 2.5 per cent and Merck advanced 3.5 per cent. In a down market!
Since health costs in America are already double or triple what they are anywhere else in the world, it’s hard for me to imagine that they could go higher. But they probably can. Brace yourself. These companies have to pay off the cost of buying elections now.
- In a contest between emotion and reason, emotion usually wins.
That was the case one year ago when Obama won, so it’s not something exclusive to Republicans. But it generally is. In America, liberalism is a political philosophy; conservatism is a religion. And when you don’t have a lot of messy thinking to do, it’s easier to make decisions. As an (admittedly extreme, but I think, still valid) example, the Shite and Sunni Muslims hate each other. But they hate us more. So, even while they were killing each other wholesale in Iraq, they were able to come together and cooperate in killing American soldiers. The high-tech roadside bombs that could penetrate even our best armor in Iraq came from Iran, a Shite country, even though al Queda and most of the fighters where they were being used were Sunni. In the same way, Bush did things that conservatives claim they hate, like running incredible budget deficits and expanding the role of the federal government. But they hate liberals more. Why? Don’t ask. Answering would involve too much thinking.
But on the Democratic side, any failure to live up to the highest expectations results in – not a loss of support, just a loss of emotional enthusiasm. In a private email, a friend mentioned that he was “disappointed” with Obama. I asked why. He said, “Maybe I’m disappointed because he’s revealed himself to be a mortal, which is not what I wanted, there’s plenty of those.” To win elections, Democrats have to be “for” their candidate. Republicans only have to be “against” the other guy.
It’s too bad. But one rule that has proven itself over the years remains: “People generally get the government they deserve.”
On XM Radio yesterday, the host urged voters from Massachusetts to call in and tell us all who they had voted for and why. Caller after caller said they had voted for Brown because he tried harder to get their vote. The host would sputter and say, “But, but, but, he’s going to go to Washington and VOTE! And he has said he’s going to vote against the health care plan! Do you agree with him on this?” And the callers would not answer the question and just go back to their first-stated point: Brown tried harder than did Coakley, so they voted for Brown. As the article states, lots of Americans will continue not to have health care because of the votes cast yesterday in Massachusetts. – Yes!
And this article in today’s NY Times addresses your comment about the stocks of pharmaceutical companies. As soon as it was obvious what was going to occur in Massachusetts, everyone started purchasing drug company stocks. They win, we lose.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/time-to-cowboy-up/?th&emc=th
This NY Times article also has thoughts that you discussed in your blog “Dainty Dems.” And thoughts like this are all over XM Radio and the Internet today. New school Democrats just don’t know how to approach the American public, how to “fight dirty,” how to get votes.
Just remember …
You read it here first!!
I think the vote in Mass was more than just a rejection of Obama but also a rejection of the ways our Lords and Masters in Washington run the country – the ways of doing business that Obama promised to change. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans want real change and Obama can’t make it happen without their willing participation. Mass would have gone for Obama without regard to who the Republican candidate was – even Romney.
Coakley represented a continuance of the status quo as the anointed heir apparent of Kennedy and the voters decided to send a message.
Big health is a winner no matter what happens. Health stocks have been going up for months. The stocks went up when it looked like health insurance reform would pass and the insurance companies would get millions of new customers with little meaningful control of costs. The stocks went up when it looked like health insurance reform would not pass and the companies could continue their current practices and make lots of money.
I listened to OBama speak to voters in Ohio today. I voted for OBama and will remain a fan until I see something better. Which I haven’t so far. Lena
Me too!
I think Obama is the best president we’ve had since Carter … and maybe even better than Carter.
The fact that Carter was pushed out of Office by the same kind of thoughtless emotional voting that gave the win to Brown – he lost to a Hollywood actor playing a role in a movie produced by the right wing – gives me great concern. But everything that “Peggy” and “RPMcMurphy” said still boils down to my bottom line conclusion:
“People generally get the government they deserve.”
Who are these “people” that get the government they deserve?
I am a “people” and I don’t know that I deserve what is being foisted upon me by people so easily swayed as the voters in Massachusetts were! I would not have voted for Brown, but I am going to reap the realities of what the emotional voters in Massachusetts have done.
You make a good point! Dealing with the decisions of other people is why the Kurds, the Uzbeks, the Armenians, the Uyghurs … all want their own country. And the ability of a diverse people to come together in common purpose … mainly in the past unfortunately … is one of the things that has made America strong.
Look at it from their point of view. They have to suffer with Bennett and Hatch.
And I DON’T suffer with Bennett and Hatch?
Another reason I’ve heard for Brown’s win: the selfishness of the people of Massachusetts. They have state-sponsored health care, so they don’t want anything to happen on the Federal level which would usurp or negate what they have – the rest of us be damned. And Brown promised them he would vote against the bill so they wouldn’t have to worry.