Last night was arguably Governor Deval Patrick's finest moment as a Massachusetts political leader as he delivered his annual state-of-the state address. In that speech Patrick began to build a strong case for his re-election in a way that was methodical yet compassionate.
I couldn't help but notice the contrast between Patrick and his predecessors like Weld, Celluci and Romney. All of those former governors by this point in their terms had seemed bored and disinterested in the Commonwealth, and eager to move on to "greater" political arenas.
Governor Patrick, to his credit, convincingly came across as totally invested in making life better for Massachusetts and its residents. He did a masterful, "Reaganesque" job of "making it personal" by injecting the stories of so many individuals to back up his points. He spoke with justifiable pride of his administration's many accomplishments over the past three years in terms of education, transportation, employee pensions, anti-corruption, and alternative energy enterprises. Those accomplishments are particularly impressive given the initial blunders his administration made in dealing with the legislature (to which Patrick himself humbly alluded). I think it's also noteworthy to recall that Governor Patrick has stuck with it here in the Commonwealth. Remember, many pundits predicted he would follow the lead of his predecessors and defect to a national position, especially since the Obama administration had apparently put offers for such positions on the table for him.
Unfortunately, most Massachusetts voters were probably too exhausted from the recently completed and highly charged Senate election to have the energy to pay attention to another political event. Additionally, the mainstream media offered little coverage, remaining understandably more interested on the rising star of Scott Brown and fixated on their simplistic conclusion that his election will clearly be detrimental to Governor Patrick's re-election prospects. If last night's speech by the Governor is any indication of what's to come in his campaign, however, I wouldn't be so sure of his demise.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Why Scott Brown Won – The Essence of U.S. Democracy is Alive and Well!
You’ve heard about why Scott Brown’s election to the U.S. Senate yesterday was so shocking. Yes, he’s a Republican in Massachusetts and it’s been almost 40 years since Massachusetts last elected a Republican to the U.S. Senate. Yes, Democrats outnumber Republicans in the Bay State by more than a 3-1 margin. Yes, here in Massachusetts our delegation to the U.S. House and Senate has consisted exclusively of Democrats for over a decade. Yes, Scott Brown had never before run for state-wide office while his Democratic opponent Martha Coakley had already won at that level as Attorney General and was one of the most recognized politicians in the Commonwealth. Yes, Coakley had prominent figures like President Obama, former President Clinton, Senator Kerry and Ted Kennedy’s widow Vicky, figures who are allegedly beloved in the Bay State, stumping aggressively on her behalf. And yes, the message they emphasized was that Coakley’s election was necessary to carry on Ted Kennedy’s legacy, and that electing Brown would decimate not only that legacy, but also Obama’s Health Care reform plans and the rest of his “progressive” agenda.
So how did this shocker happen? Most pundits are citing voter “frustration” or “anger” over the nation’s economy and the current national government’s failure to address it. But were all or even most of the over 1.1 million people who voted for Brown unemployed? No. In fact, the vast majority of his voters were gainfully employed members of the middle class from the suburbs. While frustration and anger with how the national government is handling the economy was certainly a factor, it’s an overly simplistic view. Although there are many reasons for Scott Brown’s victory, the principal one can be traced way back to an essential character trait of our revolutionary era ancestors that endures within Americans today, even those who reside in Massachusetts. Americans simply don’t like to be told how to think or act without having a say in it. Remember studying the American Revolution and how it was caused? Parliament and King George persistently ignored the pleas and protests of Americans by continuing to impose taxes and other laws upon them without their say. “No taxation without representation” became the rallying cry of colonial Patriots.
Today, the sense of many Americans is that President Obama and the Democrats in Congress are not listening to their concerns. Health care legislation is being pushed through Congress without any input from Republicans, and even when fellow Democrats question any of its myriad provisions they’re seemingly told that it doesn’t matter if it’s flawed, it has to pass because that’s what the President and Congressional leaders want. There seems to be an approach on the part of the President and Democratic leaders that debate or dissent on any part of the “progressive” agenda should be avoided. It’s a paternalistic attitude that “we’re smart, we’ve got this figured out and we know what’s best for you”. It’s the way the Coakley campaign came across to many in Massachusetts. King George and the British Parliament exhibited that same kind of attitude. It eventually led to the “shot heard round the world” in Lexington in 1775.
I don’t mean to suggest like others have that this election is another “shot heard round the world” that will launch a latter-day “American Revolution.” No, I view it more as a “wake-up” call for President Obama and the Democratic leadership (and any future majority party that presumes it knows what’s best and closes out opposing views). The U.S. system of government only truly works when there is a strong sense that legislated issues are fully vetted and all reasonable opinions are heard and considered. Sure that can slow the legislative process down, but it doesn’t necessarily mean it will kill it. Debate on the health care legislation should be opened up, not conducted behind closed doors with only Democrats present. The sweetheart deals for certain states that were used to induce favorable votes from their Senators (such as the infamous “Cornhusker Kickback“ and “Louisiana Purchase” that were secured by Senators Nelson and Landrieu, respectively) should be discarded. More generally, President Obama and the Democratic leadership should be less dismissive of Republican, Independent and other perspectives that are different than their own. I believe President Obama has begun to recognize this as evidenced by his recent decision to raise troop deployments in Afghanistan to 30,000. He also deserves credit for phoning to congratulate Scott Brown on his victory saying how much he “looks forward to working with him.”
Scott Brown and his strategists deserve credit for running a campaign that, in retrospect, was brilliant. After the December primary, Martha Coakley seemed to disappear for several weeks. Why? Perhaps it was a strategic decision on the best way to act as the front runner – lay low so as to avoid making any mistakes or becoming overexposed. Or perhaps as her handlers explained it, she needed to do fund raising. In any event, Coakley’s absence enabled Brown to define what the campaign would be about. For those weeks from the primary through the holiday season, Brown ran a series of television and radio ads and made numerous campaign appearances while Coakley was practically invisible.
In those ads and appearances, Brown established clear and compelling themes and images. He would be “an independent voice” who would fight for the people “against the machine.” Craftily, he never explicitly referred to himself as a Republican. He was a “regular guy” who wore a “barn jacket,” drove around in a pick-up truck, and loved meeting people to hear about their concerns (implicitly so he could do what he could to help them). At the same time, he fit the ideal image of what a national political leader should be – dashingly handsome, a military leader with 30 years experience in the national guard reserve and with a beautiful and successful family. He parlayed his military experience into a clear contrast with Coakley. Scott Brown would never allow terrorist suspects to be tried in civilian courts because they were “enemy combatants”, not U.S. citizens entitled to the protections and rights of the U.S. Constitution who could lawyers at taxpayer expense.
Further, Brown adroitly compared his economic plan to that of another Kennedy, JFK, in an early TV ad where he morphed out of the former President as soundbites about the benefits of tax cuts were played. Further, he spoke about the election being for “the People’s Seat”, not Ted Kennedy’s seat or anyone else’s seat, and constantly presented himself as “a man of the people.” Finally, he unconventionally responded to Coakley’s late-stage negative ads by addressing them head-on through his own ads in which both he and his daughters complained that Coakley’s negative campaigning was “wrong,” “an unfair attempt to tear him down” and another effort by the “political machine” to block the people from being heard. Everything Brown did, particularly the images and symbols he used, seemed to resonate with a large swath of Massachusetts voters.
In contrast, the themes and images Coakley projected seemed disconnected, lackluster and tired. In the primary contest, she had been presented as a thoughtful, diligent and effective prosecutor and staunch advocate for the working and middle class. In the general election, however, those attributes were downplayed. Instead, her campaign pushed the “evils of Bush-Cheney Republicans like Scott Brown” and keeping intact the “legacy of Ted Kennedy,” the “values of Massachusetts” and the “progressive Obama agenda.” The clear implication of these themes and images was that any intelligent voter MUST elect her since she was the Democratic candidate.
In both her ads and in newscast clips of her campaign appearances, shots of Martha Coakley out mingling with “regular people” were scarce, in sharp contrast to Scott Brown’s ads and clips. Additionally, the press pounced upon several of Coakley's seemingly trivial quotes about it being too much of a bother for her to be out shaking hands in the cold and about her viewing Curt Schilling as a Yankees fan. In summary, Coakley, who strikes me as being a competent and decent person, came across as robotic and presumptuous. There’s likely some gender-bias elements to this as well. In advancing as far as she did professionally, Coakley probably was forced to adopt the cautious, steady and unemotional persona that she displayed in the campaign. Coming across as overly emotional or complaining could thwart the career advancements of women in Martha Coakley’s generation. With Scott Brown, however, his emotions and complaints helped him connect with the people, something Martha Coakley was clearly unable to do.
Yeah, our democracy is not perfect. On this day following Republican Scott Brown’s stunning election to the U.S. Senate, however, I’m proud of the way it worked in my home state of Massachusetts. I’m also hopeful of what this election means. No not because I’m a supporter of the Republican Party, but rather because I abhor presumptuous in either major party and believe zealously in the value of allowing competing ideas to be voiced.
So how did this shocker happen? Most pundits are citing voter “frustration” or “anger” over the nation’s economy and the current national government’s failure to address it. But were all or even most of the over 1.1 million people who voted for Brown unemployed? No. In fact, the vast majority of his voters were gainfully employed members of the middle class from the suburbs. While frustration and anger with how the national government is handling the economy was certainly a factor, it’s an overly simplistic view. Although there are many reasons for Scott Brown’s victory, the principal one can be traced way back to an essential character trait of our revolutionary era ancestors that endures within Americans today, even those who reside in Massachusetts. Americans simply don’t like to be told how to think or act without having a say in it. Remember studying the American Revolution and how it was caused? Parliament and King George persistently ignored the pleas and protests of Americans by continuing to impose taxes and other laws upon them without their say. “No taxation without representation” became the rallying cry of colonial Patriots.
Today, the sense of many Americans is that President Obama and the Democrats in Congress are not listening to their concerns. Health care legislation is being pushed through Congress without any input from Republicans, and even when fellow Democrats question any of its myriad provisions they’re seemingly told that it doesn’t matter if it’s flawed, it has to pass because that’s what the President and Congressional leaders want. There seems to be an approach on the part of the President and Democratic leaders that debate or dissent on any part of the “progressive” agenda should be avoided. It’s a paternalistic attitude that “we’re smart, we’ve got this figured out and we know what’s best for you”. It’s the way the Coakley campaign came across to many in Massachusetts. King George and the British Parliament exhibited that same kind of attitude. It eventually led to the “shot heard round the world” in Lexington in 1775.
I don’t mean to suggest like others have that this election is another “shot heard round the world” that will launch a latter-day “American Revolution.” No, I view it more as a “wake-up” call for President Obama and the Democratic leadership (and any future majority party that presumes it knows what’s best and closes out opposing views). The U.S. system of government only truly works when there is a strong sense that legislated issues are fully vetted and all reasonable opinions are heard and considered. Sure that can slow the legislative process down, but it doesn’t necessarily mean it will kill it. Debate on the health care legislation should be opened up, not conducted behind closed doors with only Democrats present. The sweetheart deals for certain states that were used to induce favorable votes from their Senators (such as the infamous “Cornhusker Kickback“ and “Louisiana Purchase” that were secured by Senators Nelson and Landrieu, respectively) should be discarded. More generally, President Obama and the Democratic leadership should be less dismissive of Republican, Independent and other perspectives that are different than their own. I believe President Obama has begun to recognize this as evidenced by his recent decision to raise troop deployments in Afghanistan to 30,000. He also deserves credit for phoning to congratulate Scott Brown on his victory saying how much he “looks forward to working with him.”
Scott Brown and his strategists deserve credit for running a campaign that, in retrospect, was brilliant. After the December primary, Martha Coakley seemed to disappear for several weeks. Why? Perhaps it was a strategic decision on the best way to act as the front runner – lay low so as to avoid making any mistakes or becoming overexposed. Or perhaps as her handlers explained it, she needed to do fund raising. In any event, Coakley’s absence enabled Brown to define what the campaign would be about. For those weeks from the primary through the holiday season, Brown ran a series of television and radio ads and made numerous campaign appearances while Coakley was practically invisible.
In those ads and appearances, Brown established clear and compelling themes and images. He would be “an independent voice” who would fight for the people “against the machine.” Craftily, he never explicitly referred to himself as a Republican. He was a “regular guy” who wore a “barn jacket,” drove around in a pick-up truck, and loved meeting people to hear about their concerns (implicitly so he could do what he could to help them). At the same time, he fit the ideal image of what a national political leader should be – dashingly handsome, a military leader with 30 years experience in the national guard reserve and with a beautiful and successful family. He parlayed his military experience into a clear contrast with Coakley. Scott Brown would never allow terrorist suspects to be tried in civilian courts because they were “enemy combatants”, not U.S. citizens entitled to the protections and rights of the U.S. Constitution who could lawyers at taxpayer expense.
Further, Brown adroitly compared his economic plan to that of another Kennedy, JFK, in an early TV ad where he morphed out of the former President as soundbites about the benefits of tax cuts were played. Further, he spoke about the election being for “the People’s Seat”, not Ted Kennedy’s seat or anyone else’s seat, and constantly presented himself as “a man of the people.” Finally, he unconventionally responded to Coakley’s late-stage negative ads by addressing them head-on through his own ads in which both he and his daughters complained that Coakley’s negative campaigning was “wrong,” “an unfair attempt to tear him down” and another effort by the “political machine” to block the people from being heard. Everything Brown did, particularly the images and symbols he used, seemed to resonate with a large swath of Massachusetts voters.
In contrast, the themes and images Coakley projected seemed disconnected, lackluster and tired. In the primary contest, she had been presented as a thoughtful, diligent and effective prosecutor and staunch advocate for the working and middle class. In the general election, however, those attributes were downplayed. Instead, her campaign pushed the “evils of Bush-Cheney Republicans like Scott Brown” and keeping intact the “legacy of Ted Kennedy,” the “values of Massachusetts” and the “progressive Obama agenda.” The clear implication of these themes and images was that any intelligent voter MUST elect her since she was the Democratic candidate.
In both her ads and in newscast clips of her campaign appearances, shots of Martha Coakley out mingling with “regular people” were scarce, in sharp contrast to Scott Brown’s ads and clips. Additionally, the press pounced upon several of Coakley's seemingly trivial quotes about it being too much of a bother for her to be out shaking hands in the cold and about her viewing Curt Schilling as a Yankees fan. In summary, Coakley, who strikes me as being a competent and decent person, came across as robotic and presumptuous. There’s likely some gender-bias elements to this as well. In advancing as far as she did professionally, Coakley probably was forced to adopt the cautious, steady and unemotional persona that she displayed in the campaign. Coming across as overly emotional or complaining could thwart the career advancements of women in Martha Coakley’s generation. With Scott Brown, however, his emotions and complaints helped him connect with the people, something Martha Coakley was clearly unable to do.
Yeah, our democracy is not perfect. On this day following Republican Scott Brown’s stunning election to the U.S. Senate, however, I’m proud of the way it worked in my home state of Massachusetts. I’m also hopeful of what this election means. No not because I’m a supporter of the Republican Party, but rather because I abhor presumptuous in either major party and believe zealously in the value of allowing competing ideas to be voiced.
GADFLY'S BACK - after an 18 month hiatus
Regrettably, for various personal, familial and professional reasons, I neglected this blog for the last year and a half. During that time span: (1) in an historic election, Barack Obama was elected President of the United States; (2) I led a group of high school students from my school on a trip to Washington DC where we “witnessed” Obama’s inauguration (from the far end of the Mall near the Washington Monument along with a throng of over a million others); (3) I left my teaching gig at the end of the 2008-2009 school year in an effort to move to a more financially lucrative job, (4) I’ve engaged in a thus far futile search for such a job, applying for over 50 positions in educational administration and law; (5) at the local level, a new mayor has taken office in Newton with appropriate assertiveness by cleaning house in certain departments and presenting an initial impression of much-needed decisiveness combined with understanding; and (5) U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy passed away and a special election was held for the approximately three years remaining on his term.
It has now been exactly one year since Obama’s inauguration and in that special U.S. Senate election in Massachusetts, a stunning result has occurred – a Republican, Scott Brown, prevailed. This is clearly an opportune time for me to resume my postings of political musings. And I now vow to keep them coming without further interruption, no matter what transpires in my life, as a way to retain my own sanity and sense of purpose.
It has now been exactly one year since Obama’s inauguration and in that special U.S. Senate election in Massachusetts, a stunning result has occurred – a Republican, Scott Brown, prevailed. This is clearly an opportune time for me to resume my postings of political musings. And I now vow to keep them coming without further interruption, no matter what transpires in my life, as a way to retain my own sanity and sense of purpose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
