By now anyone who pays attention to politics has put forward an explanation as to how a Republican was able to win the U.S. Senate seat held by the late Ted Kennedy for over a half century. Many Democratic insiders have blamed the loss on the Coakley campaign's ineptitude (confusing Red Sox hero Curt Schilling as a "Yankee"; taking a two week vacation after the Democratic primary; taking votes for granted; and other campaign mishaps). Others like to point out that Scott Brown ran a terrific campaign: stealth like until the final week or two, by which point momentum was irreversibly on his side. And, of course, Republicans and other national pundits will have you believe that this race was, at its core, a referendum on President Obama, the Democratic agenda, and, most significantly, national health care reform.
In my estimation, the outcome on Tuesday was the result of all of the above, but for reasons Democrats can take solace in. Let me explain.
It is without debate that Coakley ran a lackluster campaign, which sealed her fate in such a difficult political environment. A more proactive, aggressive campaign would have closed the vacuum within which the Brown campaign flourished. Once Brown's prospects for victory became evident, Republicans (and conservative independents) became energized. They would not let this unique opportunity pass without a fight. I have always felt that Massachusetts is not quite as liberal a state as often made out to be. There are large pockets of independent and even conservative leaning people throughout the commonwealth, particularly in suburban and exurban areas. The problem for Republicans in winning state wide election over the past several decades has, I believe, been largely due to right-leaning voter resignation and defeatism, to the point where Republicans would simply not vote, or if they did it would be a "protest vote." This all changed over the past few weeks as Republicans came out in droves, energized and determined to change the balance of power, not only in Massachusetts politics, but in Washington as well.
There is no question that there are more Democrats in Massachusetts than Republicans (on the order of 3:1). But this election came at perhaps the low-point of Democratic and progressive morale, both nationally, and also in Massachusetts. The Democratic base, such as it is, has become disillusioned with the party's inability to enact the change promised in the past two elections (2006 and 2008), despite a Democrat in the White House and historically large majorities in both houses of Congress. Democrats feel as if the elected leadership has compromised on too much, particularly with the insurance and pharmaceutical industries with regard to health reform, the Democrats' signature policy issue. Furthermore, bank bailouts and escalation in Afghanistan have further disillusioned progressives, prompting many to question whether this administration is willing and/or capable of transformative, progressive change.
From an economic standpoint, the bank bailout program, known as TARP, was in many ways necessary in preventing a complete collapse of the national--and world--financial system, with dire consequences for so-called Main Street. The same can be said about the stimulus program, despite its seeming inadequacy. But these programs did not have to be so unpopular among progressives, let alone the average American. Where Obama and the Democrats failed most thoroughly was not with these policies, per se, but in their failure to sell these policies by tying them to a larger narrative. They've been almost constantly on the defensive, having to react to Republican accusations and falsehoods, rather than getting out in front of these policies, explaining to the American people why they are necessary and how we got to where we are today. For instance, there is much outrage over a ballooning national debt (which is much to blame on the previous administration) and over increased taxes (even though the Democrats have actually cut taxes as part of the stimulus bill--at least in the short term). In failing to do this, they left the door wide open for criticism from both the right and left. In addition to its failure to market these complicated policies, the administration has failed to introduce complimentary policies that would demonstrate a common cause with working Americans.
And of course there was health care. Republicans will have you believe that the Massachusetts election was a referendum on health care reform. They are partly correct, but not necessarily because voters want to prevent health care reform outright because it goes "too far." Nope. To the extent that the Massachusetts outcome was a result of health care policy, I believe it was because Democrats had (1) dragged their feet on the issue throughout the summer and fall, making uncomfortable compromises along the way; (2) the bill was stripped of many of its most popular components, particularly the so-called public option; and (3) progressive morale for the entire process has dissipated, prompting many world-be Democratic voters to stay home in protest. Therefore, it becomes increasingly clear that health care was a major factor in the MA election, but not for the reasons Republicans claim. A new
poll by the liberal Research2000 demonstrates that, in Massachusetts, most Scott Brown voters felt health care reform didn't go "far enough".
And finally, the Massachusetts outcome was less an indictment of Democrats than it was of Washington. Democrats happen to be the party in power, but many of the causes of voter frustration stem from the perception that Washington simply doesn't work--it lacks the ability to pass legislation that represents meaningful change--even when the party in power has historical majorities in Congress and the White House! The ways in which the Democratic agenda has been methodically and procedurally derailed by a small minority of 40 (and now 41) Republican senators (and a handful of recalcitrant Democrats) has been frustrating to millions of Americans who so thoroughly repudiated conservatism in 2006 and then, for good measure, in 2008. Voters are asking themselves: How is it that Washington is being run almost exclusively by the Democrats we swept into power, yet these same people run the place as if they're still in the minority?
There's an enormous amount of populous outrage throughout the country--both from the left and right. This is understandable. Much of it stems from the way Democrats have governed (or failed to govern); more, perhaps, stems from the feeling that the country has been on the wrong course for almost a decade now, with little being done to change direction.
What I find most interesting is the timing of the outrage. The Bush Administration and Washington Republicans were given the benefit of the doubt for nearly six years before voters finally turned their back on conservatism, culminating in the 2006 Democratic electoral sweep. The Obama Administration has been in power for exactly one year now--having inherited the most devastating financial crisis since the Great Depression, two unpopular wars, and many other significant challenges. Yet, the outrage is overwhelming, as demonstrated by populist "Tea Party" movements and public opinion polling. Understandably, the country is in a very difficult place right now, with unemployment above 10% and a growing sense of economic insecurity. But it remains striking how quickly the American public has turned its back on the party and President it chose to lead them back onto the road of prosperity and economic security. (Side note: This will be a fascinating era for Political Scientists to study, particularly the aforementioned "timing" of popular outrage).
It must be noted that the country endured a Republican president for three years during the height of the Great Depression before finally sweeping Roosevelt and the New Dealers into power in late 1932. Republican policy vis-a-vis the Depression had been so thoroughly discredited by the time Roosevelt came to power that the public was willing to give the Democrats time to set the situation right. Today, however, the financial crisis and the "Great Recession" were only in their infancy as late as the autumn of 2008. As such, despite its roots in Republican policy dating back to Reagan, the current economic situation has been most closely associated with Obama and the Democrats--at least in the minds of many voters.
So how should the Democrats move forward in 2010 and beyond?
First, Democrats should govern as if they actually have historical majorities in Congress and occupy the White House. This means enacting legislation that positively affects people's lives in tangible ways, starting with the passage of national health care reform. If Democrats think they'll face a less hostile political environment in the fall if they fail to pass health reform than if they do successfully pass it, they're more inept than I give them credit for.
Secondly, it is time for Democrats to show the public that they're working for them. Generally speaking, Democratic policies are more to the advantage of working and middle-class people than are Republican policies, but this isn't always perceived clearly by the public. Republicans are good at politics, portraying themselves as having "common sense" solutions to the nation's challenges, while Democrats are portrayed as being "elitist" (whatever that means). It's time for Democrats to call Republicans out on their faux-populism and present to the American people a strong set of policies that affect their lives positively. If they can paint an overarching narrative that explains how we got where we are today and clearly spell out what we need to do to change course, the American people will listen. Democrats need to be confident in their convictions and trusting that that American people will respond positively--if only given the opportunity to do so.
Massachusetts doesn't have to be a sign of things to come for Democrats, if only they take it as a wake up call.
-Admit that some mistakes have been made, but that now is not the time for retreat. There have been challenges and roadblocks along the way, but commitment to meaningful change will continue in earnest. Will not let the ways of Washington or the special interests block what needs to be done in order to improve our economy and set our nation on a firmer foundation moving forward.