Two stories ripped through the American political world last
week, stories that pleased Republicans and some other conservatives, but that
frightened the Democrats.
On Tuesday of that week, Republican Scott Brown defeated
Democrat Martha Coakley in a special election for the U.S. Senate seat
previously held by the late Ted Kennedy. Pundits and politicians alike
scrambled to explain the wherefores and whys of the results especially in light
of what they would mean for national healthcare and the political face of the
U.S. Senate.
Adding to the turmoil was a U.S. Supreme Court ruling two
days later overturning provisions of McCain-Feingold. The court said, in a 5-4
ruling, that corporations may now fund political campaign ads up to the date of
the election.
Opponents of the ruling–Democrats and other liberals and
so-called progressives– see the decision as stacking the election decks in
favor of Republicans, while others see the ruling as being consistent with the
freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment.
Mr. Brown’s election in Massachusetts does throw at least a
small monkey wrench in President Obama’s and the Democratic Party’s plan for
national healthcare. But that monkey wrench is that the Democrats no longer
have a 60-40-seat filibuster proof majority in the Senate. With negotiation,
they could likely still get something passed, even with the idea being fiscally
unsound and beyond the scope of constitutionally enumerated powers.
Some commentators have said that the vote in the special
election was a mandate against national healthcare while others say it’s more
of a reaction to the candidates themselves. We’re more inclined to think the
latter.
Massachusetts already has a state healthcare plan similar to
what the Democrats are proposing for the country, so voters there may only be
opposed to another level of healthcare bureaucracy and increased taxes.
But Mr. Brown ran an anti-Washington type of campaign, and
he ran hard. Contrast that to Ms. Coakley’s laid back, “phone it in” approach.
And she was so out of touch with the voters that she even thought Curt
Schilling had pitched for the New York Yankees instead of her own Boston Red
Sox.
But we are most inclined to think that–coupled with Ms.
Coakley’s poor campaign– the Brown campaign tapped into an anti-Washington
sentiment felt along all aspects of the political spectrum. That sentiment was
made most manifest with the various Tea Parties held last year. People
attending those events said they were frustrated and angry at both tax and
spend Democrats and borrow and spend Republicans.
And it is the mistrust of both incumbent parties that brings
us to consideration of that second story.
It is true that the Supreme Court ruling may work in favor
of Republican candidates who are perceived to be more allied with big business
than are their Democrat counter parts. But it is equally true that the ruling
is also in line with provisions of free speech. The problem is that both
Republicans and Democrats have spent more years accruing power than in honoring
the Constitution.
If elected and would-be elected politicians stayed true to
the Constitution and worked to preserve the liberties of individual men and
women there would be little mischief and no power to be bought by big business
or big labor. It is the arrogance of power, from both the left and the right
that gives concern.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading...
Comments