If the political pundits are correct that purple is the new black, then Massachusetts is becoming tres chic. For those of you who have no idea what I'm talking about, in political speak, blue states are reliably Democratic, red states are reliably Republican, and purple is, of course, what you get when you have a mix of red and blue. Massachusetts was just about the bluest state in the union, but last night, Scott Brown, a comparatively unknown Republican state senator defeated well known Democratic Attorney General, Martha Coakley in a special election to fill the seat of the late Senator Ted Kennedy. This latest "Massachusetts Miracle" will doubtlessly be discussed by political junkies and social scientists for years to come, and it may take quite some time to sort out its meaning and implications.
According to some polls, Ms. Coakley had a 31% lead two months ago. Not since the 1978 Red Sox has anyone in Massachusetts blown a lead so big so close to the finish line, and this time no one can curse Bucky F--king Dent. Mr. Brown ran an excellent campaign and Ms. Coakley did not, but that doesn't seem enough to fully explain last night's result. Was it perceived arrogance on the part of Coakley, Obama, or the Washington Democrats? Was it the unpopular health care bill working through Congress, the Tea Party, anti-incumbent fever (Coakley wasn't an incumbent but the seat was controlled by her party), or was Brown just that attractive a candidate? All of the above and likely every combination thereof will be claimed by someone as the right answer, but we'll never really know for sure. Among other things, voters can't always pinpoint exactly what makes them pick A over B. All we can say for sure is that Massachusetts, which seemed destined to send its first woman to the Senate, will instead be sending a Republican to the Senate for the first time since the Nixon landslide of '72.
The bigger question is what does it all mean? If the reason is the health care bill, does it mean reform is dead for now or does it mean that we'll pass different reform? If it's anti-incumbency, are Republican incumbents as vulnerable as Democratic incumbents in November? What if people just prefer Scott Brown? Also, what are the broader implications of now having 41 senators in the Republican caucus? Yes, Obama is losing popularity, but he remains popular in Massachusetts. Yes, the Tea Party fought for Brown and he won a seat held by Democrats for a long time, but in November in the New York 23rd, the Tea Party backed a conservative and they lost a long held Republican seat to a Democrat. I don't know; maybe moderates are sick of both sides trying to pull them to the respective lunatic fringes.
If there's anything I feel safe in saying it's that our recent political history can teach us something. Shortly after the Republican Revolution of 1994, people wrote the epitaph for the Democratic Party as a national force. A few years later, the same was said of the Republicans, asserting that they now represented only the Deep South and Mountain West. After seeing this go back and forth with the speed of Olympic ping-pong, even Americans, notorious for having a short historical memory, will likely hesitate before drawing such sweeping conclusions. Congratulations to Senator Brown and, as one of your constituents, let me thank you in advance for your service to our state and country. May your election usher in a new era of more responsible governing and less of the partisan bickering that has eroded the respect we should have for those who represent us in Congress.
