The election of Republican Scott Brown as the junior senator from Massachusetts changes the balance of power in the U.S. Senate. No matter what his priorities are, his immediate impact will be to limit Democratic ambitions.
But some are jumping to the conclusion that his election this week represented a groundswell of conservativism. Were Massachusetts voters slapping down Democrats and condemning moderation? We don’t see much in Massachusetts history to suggest that the Bay State is likely to become a red state.
Massachusetts gave us Tip O’Neill, the Kennedy family, and Michael Dukakis, as well as moderate Republicans like Francis Sargent, Edward Brooke and William Weld. In the 1972 re-election of Richard Nixon, Massachusetts was the only state to vote for George McGovern.
As Tip O’Neill once put it, “All politics is local,” and we believe Scott Brown was able to tap into voter frustration with state Democratic leaders. Statehouse corruption has been perennial problem and since the days of James Michael Curley, Massachusetts political bosses have been viewed with suspicion.
Brown has pledged to vote against health care reform. But are Massachusetts voters unhappy with government health care, or are they simply happier with the government-run insurance program they already have?
Whatever propelled Brown into the Senate, his presence there greatly strengthens the GOP. And yet, the new dynamic may not be everything that conservatives hope for. Rank-and-file Democrats may recognize that compromise is an essential part of politics, untying the hands of party leaders.
Maine’s Republican senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, have criticized many aspects of current health care legislation, but they have both spoken about the need for health care reform. They now seem to be in a position to join a bipartisan drive toward this important goal.
Whether such bipartisanship is possible in Washington today is open to question, but we hope the president and Senate leaders now recognize the importance of conferring with moderate Republicans.
During the Bush administration, Senate moderates brokered a compromise that preserved Senate rules while recognizing the rights of the administration and the majority to an “up-or-down vote” on judicial nominees. It is possible that the new balance of power in the Senate will lead to a new and more productive approach to legislating.
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
