Why Scott Brown’s Victory is Good for Obama and the Democrats

Warning, what follows is a post that is political in nature. I don't think I've said anything terribly offensive, but just in case, you've been warned!

When I discussed the 2008 election with friends, I argued that an Obama victory would be bad for the Democratic Party. I did so because I felt (and still do) that Obama represented the hardcore leftist fringe of his own party. While he did an excellent job in controlling his message and his image as one who would bring sweeping, bipartisan change to Washington, I suspected that once elected he’d show his true colors. Now, I’m not bringing this up to simply disparage Obama, but to point out that his failure to live up to his campaign has (so far) doomed his presidency. I’m not a professional historian, but I think it’s safe to say that the United States has historically been comprised of people who pride themselves on being both moderate and independent. Though the press and political pundits have spent gallons of ink on the increasing polarization of Washington and dividing states into Red and Blue, in reality the country as a collective tends to be pretty centrist, with just a touch of conservatism. I believe that tonight’s election in Massachusetts, a Blue state if there ever was one, where registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans 3-1, supports this. Roughly half of Massachusetts citizens are registered independents who aren’t tied down to a party. In 2008, they swung to Obama’s camp; today they supported the Republican candidate. So, what can Obama and the Democrats learn from this?

1. Don’t overplay your “mandate.” While Obama and Democrats won solid victories in the 2008 elections, they did so on the strength of a weakening economy and a series of blunders by the Republican Party that painted them as being out-of-touch with the common citizen. There’s absolutely no reason to think that Republicans can’t successfully adopt the same message in 2010. The reality is that while many people changed parties and voted Democrat; at heart they didn’t change their ideological orientation.
2. Don’t allow the extreme leftists of your party to be in charge. Obama campaigned on being a bipartisan leader. So far he’s shown neither the capacity to engage Republicans in meaningful conversation, nor has he been much of a leader. He allowed the radicals in his party to shape the discussion over health care reform, which not only ensured that the Republicans would draw a hard line against it, but caused fractures within his own party.
3. Abandon any idea of sweeping health care reform. How many presidencies have foundered on the idea of health care reform? Do we really think Obama is any different? Instead of trying to pass a massive bill, pass a series of smaller bills that are politically doable. Learn to compromise with Republicans and Independents. For example, suggest trades like this: “if you support forcing insurers to no longer discriminate against those with pre-existing conditions, I’ll support tort reform.”

If Obama takes these lessons to heart and starts to legislate from the center as a result of tonight’s election, he’ll actually stand a better chance of being reelected. The Republican’s 1994 Contract with America and their subsequent victories in the elections that year forced Clinton to do just that and as a result, he ended up having a pretty productive presidency. Only time will tell if Obama does the same.

Edit: I neglected to mention something else that may have contributed to Brown’s victory that has not been widely discussed by the talking heads of late. As you may recall, in 2004, when it looked likely that MA Senator John Kerry was going to win the election, MA Democrats pushed to have the authority of the Governor (then Mitt Romney, a Republican) to appoint a replacement senator stripped out of fears that Romney would appoint a fellow Republican. This effort passed in to law despite Romney’s veto. Fast forward to 2009. Senator Kennedy, despite having supported the 2004 effort, makes a push to reverse that legislation and restore the power to the governor to appoint a replacement senator until a special election could be held. The reason? Kennedy knew that he was dying and wanted to make sure that the governor (now Deval Patrick, a Democrat) could appoint another Democrat to Kennedy’s seat. Not surprisingly, the Massachusetts House and Senate flip-flopped from their 2004 decision and acceded to Kennedy’s request.
Ironically, by changing the law, the special election, which otherwise would have probably been held much earlier to prevent too long a gap in having the senatorial seat unfilled, didn’t take place until today. These extra months of campaigning, coupled with the Senate’s approval of the Health Care bill and the Administration’s bungling of the Christmas Day bomber, allowed Brown to build up a campaign and win an election that his opponent once led according to most polls 65% to 35%. If the election had happened earlier, there is little doubt in my mind that the Democratic candidate (Martha Coakley or someone else) would have won easily.
I bring this up not just to point out the irony though, but to ask this question: is it possible that the people of MA didn’t appreciate the obvious political machinations that the 2004 to 2009 flip-flop represented and took that in to consideration when they stepped in to the voting booth?