Not so much a conservative victory, as a victory for states rights.
Listening to the talking heads spin the victory of Scott Brown in Massachusetts you would think Barry Goldwater beat John Kennedy. I don’t read it that way. I have listened to and read a lot of comments, mostly from Democrats and independents explaining why they voted. There is something there, something very “tea party-esque”. And it goes deeper than last years Tea Parties. It is a desire that the founding fathers would have recognized. It goes to the root of what makes the citizens of Massachusetts leaders in defending our freedom.
On the Bill Bennett morning show, he had a caller, Patrice who was a self described liberal and democrat who was non the less voting for Brown. Her explanation provides some important insights. It wasn’t because of socialized health care.
<blockquote>We have socialized health care here and it is great, she pointed out qualifying it as “expensive” but that she was very happy with it. Her problem with ObamaCare was “I don’t want to ask Chuck Schumer for permission for my son to get a procedure”. It was very easy to pass up the significance of this statement. Patrice’s problem with the Federal government’s lurch to the left wasn’t that it was too socialist, but that it was too far away. She doesn’t mind socialized health care, as long as the politicians running the thing are within slapping distance. </blockquote>
She tried to make this point again a short while later by emphasizing that she doesn’t have a problem with “progressive policies”. She just didn’t want Nancy Pelosi “<em><strong>dictating</strong></em>” how those policies would be implemented.
While Patrice made her points very clear they don’t fit the agenda of the left or the right. They don’t support agenda of the Republican party or the Democrat party. The important take away from this election isn’t that the Obama administration is supporting too radical a socialist agenda, or that it is moving too far to left for everyone. Rather , it is the abuse of power by the government as they dictate how <strong><em>their </em> </strong>vision of the agenda will be implemented. The idea that Nancy Pelosi will dictate so much of what goes on in Concorde, immune to the political pleas of the Concorde voter is no more palatable to these citizens then the equally distant Parliament in London was at the founding of the country.
What ever the benefit of “national will” all politics is local. The voters of this country have decided that they don’t like San Francisco or New York deciding everything and dictating it to the lesser represented. They used to call that state’s rights. However besmirched the term has become the party that can come up with a platform to deliver candidates who recognize that big, aggressive, intrusive government is a problem and not a cash cow will win the hearts and minds of the voters.
Socialism may be OK to some and to others staunch conservative values may be what makes their community work. But no one likes the idea that someone they don’t know, don’t elect, who doesn’t campaign within their community will decide what will be implemented either way. The voters want the Federal Government constrained by their representatives. That is the message of the election.
Cross posted at Freedoms Light Org