"Those who do not learn the lessons of history," George Santayana famously said, "are condemned to repeat them." But those who overinterpret the lessons of history may also draw erroneous - even catastrophic - inferences about their meaning. As Democrats contemplate the implications of their defeat in the Massachusetts Senate election, there is every sign that they are in the process of making the second mistake, with disastrous consequences for the Democratic Party and the nation.
Let us briefly review what happened in Massachusetts last Tuesday. In a special election to the Senate, the Republican candidate, Scott Brown, defeated the Democratic candidate, Martha Coakley, by 4.8 points. In a state in which there had not been a Republican Senator since 1978, the Republicans won a clear-cut victory. But this was anything but a landslide; had Coakley managed to attract 55,000 Brown voters in an election in which over 2,200,000 ballots were cast, she would have emerged triumphant.
Let us imagine what the outcome might have been had candidate Coakley not done the following:
Many more examples could be cited, but the point is clear: this was not simply a bad campaign, but a calamitous one. Can anyone doubt that a minimally competent Democratic candidate could have won this election?
To be sure, losing Ted Kennedy's seat - and with it their 60-vote filibuster-proof majority - was a major blow to the Democrats. But to conclude from this particular election - which could easily have had a different outcome - that Democrats need to beat a hasty retreat on health care reform is to take overinterpretation to absurd lengths. After all, the Democrats still have a 59-41 majority in the Senate and a 256-178 majority in the House - far better numbers than George W. Bush ever enjoyed. Nevertheless, squeamish Democrats seem to be headed for the exit doors, worried that they be accused of "not hearing the message" from the voters of Massachusetts.
Yet as Steve Pearlstein of the Washington Post and others have pointed out, there is little reason to believe that the Massachusetts vote was a referendum on health care. True, Massachusetts voters were angry and wanted to send a message, but this anger had more to do with the general state of the economy and the failure of those in power to address ordinary people's concerns. According to a survey by Hart Research Associates of 810 voters in the special election conducted on the evening of the election, the most important quality voters were looking for was "electing a candidate who will strengthen the economy and create more jobs" (79% single-most/very important factor). Those who felt the economy was "not so good or poor" (52%) voted for Brown 56 to 39%, while voters who said the economy was "excellent, good or fair" voted for Coakley 52 to 43%. Surprisingly, especially given national media coverage, Coakley won among the 59% of voters who identified health care as one of their top two issues (50% Coakley, 46% Brown); moreover, 67% favor the Massachusetts law that ensures almost universal coverage, including a remarkable 53% of Brown voters.
As the Democrats make the fateful decision of whether to stand and fight on health care reform or to fold their tents, it is important to remember that what is at stake is a fundamental moral issue that transcends the policy and political debates of the moment. Maintaining the status quo means that each year 5,000,000 people will lose their medical insurance, over 900,000 will go bankrupt for medically-related reasons, and 45,000 people will die because of lack of health insurance. This is unconscionable in a society as wealthy as the United States, and it is hard to see how the Democratic Party - if it is to stand for anything - can permit such a system to continue.
It would be tragic indeed if the defeat in Massachusetts continues to be grossly overinterpreted by Democrats, causing a fatal loss of nerve when courage and steadfastness are required. After nearly one hundred years of struggle to establish the principle of universal health care, the Democrats have finally reached the one-yard line. Opportunities like these are rare, and if the Democrats - with control of the White House and with substantial majorities in both the House and Senate - cannot get the ball into the end zone, they will justifiably lose the people's confidence in their capacity to govern. Democrats simply must find a way to get this done. Failure to do so will cost them grievously at the polls, but the real casualty will be a growing loss of faith in the very possibility of progressive social change.
How does one explain Bye Bayh?
Panic rules the day in Democrat land.
And the calls to do something about it are equally foolish. How does something get done when the Republicans have 41 votes in the Senate? Answer: It doesn't.
Health care was the #2 issue going into the 2008. If the Democrats had governed in 2009 the way they campaigned in 2008, a hat rack with a D next to it's name would have won in Massachusetts.
Its a combination of democrats being jaded over not getting any actual change from Obama and the democrats
And the Republicans being energized over the poor economy "They took our jobs!!!" as south park would say.
Personally I find the difference between a republican and democrat to be fairly minimal and never understand how someone could become so invested in either political party.
As for the healthcare bill, its a fairly bad bill. So the democrats are probably better off not passing it. If they continue on and water it down even more and then pass it like some are suggesting, then Obama will likely be a 1 term president
The Dems are in a terrible position. Voters who stayed home for the Mass election were overwhelmingly upset because the Washington legislation didn't go far enough. When people are mandated to purchase an expensive product from politically connected monopolies that face little competition and no meaningful regulator to enforce the consumer protections in the bill, they won't be happy.
Insurance premiums in MA are going up by 10% a year. That 68% support is accompanied by 32 % disappointment, and the number have gotten worse and worse. The plan proposed by the Federal government is even more pro-insurer/anti-consumer. So I don't forsee the sunny outlook you do if the bill is passed.
The white house got the warning, and instead of moving forward and passing healthcare reform without he republicans, Obama handed over his political capital to Max Baucus who is owned by big insurance and pharmacy companies. Then we have Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Mary Landreau, all these conservative dems who are mere republicans, threatening to kill the healthcare bill, and the democratic leadership in the senate and the White House caving in to their obnoxious demands to the detriment of Obama and his party looking like they cannot govern. I just hope that the democrats grow a spine and do the right thing before it is too late. This bipartisianship is not working, and the democrats need to work together.
In my opinion, some of the white congressmen and women form both parties are doing everything to take down the black president. We have white congressmen and women form both parties making racial statements about Obama, and the republicans, to the point of putting his life at risk. I watched Scott Brown’s election celebration and the only race that I saw in the audience was the white race. President Obama cannot get angry and kick ass and get things done or speak out against the racial remarks about him because the MSM would portray him as an angry Blackman. Might as well Obama serve one term and let the white status quo continue to wreck this country. It has started already with the republican judges on the Supreme Court giving corporations personhood to spend unlimited money on political campaigns. This is the beginning of the end of the USA as we know it if we the people do not take back the country from the greedy and corrupt politicians from both sides of the aisle.
Come up something original and ACCURATE please.
He didn't get to the Presidency without white voters support and belief.
That's the result of a dependent class that continues to vote on race as the #1 factor.
Any major city in America. Check 'em out. They are the same.
Obama and Pelosi agenda were the focal point. And the results speak to the voters dislike with those policies. In all 3 states.
Big govt is not desired by the American citizen --------------------- taxpayer.
It wasn't popular with Bush and its not popular with Obama's presidency.
Excuses of racism, campaign flaws, are as useless as blaming it on curveture of the earth.
Obama and Pelosi are the blame.
Once the legislation became about giving insurers 30 million forced customers, with no competition, and no one to enforce the regulations, it became very unpopular.
It couldn't be because the Corporate Democrats are leading a coalition of a variety of voters, but after those constituents support them in elections, the Democratic Leadership kicks them in the teeth.
Loyalty goes both ways. Democrats took our time and energy and have given nothing back. They can have their lobbyist friends help them now.
Test your theory.
In fact, why haven't Dems passed it already, like months ago?
There must be a reason for that ... but apparently it can't be discussed.
program...and it's not working. Premiums have gone up and people are actually choosing to pay the fines(required) rather than buy health insurance because it's so expensive and they have to pay more out of pocket...
Why haven't Sen. John Kerry and Congressman barney frank mentioned this in their health reform deliberations? Because they're too busy catering to the insurance companies and drug companies, who are their real constituents.
Voters are upset because it's become clear Congress is on the take and ignoring the people they were elected to serve.
Well I am from Ma. Fall River to be exact and I have heard no such thing from Democrats in this state .Now Republicans that is another issue entirely since they oppose everything that any Democrat proposes . Don't try and speak for the majority of us in Ma. who are happy with our health care system ! Seems you Republicans love trying to put fear in the hearts of people so that they vote the way you would like to see them vote.
I would not say Dems have no loyalty in their own party what I would say is Dems are independent thinkers they don't follow blindly as I have noticed many Republicans do and yes that does make it difficult at times to agree on everything but it doesn't mean we are not loyal .Loyalty does not mean to follow blindly without question !
Eventually maybe we could get a group of representatives for the people and not for the corporations or self interest.
And on the same note, the Republican party works the best when its members do the same, deciding individually what issues are important to them and standing up for those values. The Republicans, unfortunately, have a nasty habit of using wedge issues to inflame voter sentiment without encouraging citizens to analyze these ideas seriously.
"This is unconscionable in a society as wealthy as the United States, and it is hard to see how the Democratic Party - if it is to stand for anything - can CAPITULATE TO such a system."
Suppose that the public was dissatisfied with the democratic party cozying up to the special interests who advertize on media outlets and decided to send a message and vote republican. My guess is that the media would not be all that keen on reporting that. Better to report that people were voting "left" or "right" or "moderate" thereby keeping up the illusion that there are actual political differences driving the process, not special interests who, after all, keep the media in limousines, cordon bleu dinners, and vacays on Martha's Vineyard.
I live in Ma.I am aware of what is in the news here and media was all over Brown like flies on crap ,building him up while giving a negative view of Coakley .
Mr. Karabel was right when he said Martha Coakey took for granted that she would win after the primaries and its also true that she did not make herself visible enough to voters . Coakleys poor performance was more to blame than voters anger . The reported health care bill was not even on the radar here in Ma because we as Mr. Karabel pointed out already have health care for all in our state . BTW the race was close not the landslide that media keeps presenting it as !
The Republicans saw and opening and took it and they may have done some cheating with those absentee ballots .
Yes we want Obama to be more assertive with the Republican party ,yes we wanted him to use that 60 vote majority and say to hell with you Republicans if you insist on be obstructionists get the hell out of the way and yes we wanted to see Bush's policies reversed and these two wars ended, but this Democratic loss in Ma. had nothing to do with sending any message as the Republican party would like people to believe.
BTW those teabaggers are largely crazy Republicans stirring up people and
A decent health care bill, one that embraces a strong public option, might restore that confidence. It would almost certainly improve Democratic election chances and boost Obama’s own reelection hopes.
The public option would bring true competition to the industry and might one day eliminate the wastefully expensive middle man that the insurance companies represent. More importantly, the inclusion of an option would signal Obama’s return to his base and a renewed concern for the needs of his Main Street supporters.
Mesmerized by the spell of American Svengali Rahm Emanuel, Obama tragically jettisoned the public option because health insurance companies opposed it. Right wingers in the White House and Congress eagerly consented to insurance company demands in exchange for campaign cash.
Thus right wing Democrats championed the aspects of the bill that benefited the industry. The bill included a mandate to buy insurance coupled with tax payer subsidies that amount to an easily recognized gimmick designed to insure a profit windfall for the insurance industry. That public money will find its way into outrageous bonuses for CEOs and excessive profits for Wall Street shareholders. Also omitted by the Democratic right wing were any meaningful cost containment provisions and an anti-trust measure.
The president, his Svengali and right wingers in Congress have fooled on one.
Wow didn't you see that go down in flames with the public the first time? ABove all they see the public option as a direct path to Socialized medicine and unlike you THEY HATE THAT OPTION.
Been there done that. Can't give it up can you.
Your assertion that "THEY HATE THAT OPTION" is patently false. If you learned how to use "The Google" you might be able to educate yourself about the facts.
For example, in a Washington Post/Kaiser Foundation/Harvard University poll, more than 6 out of 10 of Massachusetts voters who voted on Tuesday APPROVED of Obama's job performance. And more than HALF of Brown's backers said Obama was NOT a factor in their vote for Brown.
At the same time, 58% of Massachusetts voters said they were dissatisfied or angry about what the Republicans in Congress are offering. Using your logic, Massachusetts voters elected a Republican Senator because a majority are unhappy with the Republicans!
In another poll that was reported in some MA newspapers over 60% of Tuesday's voters who also voted for Obama in 2008 indicated that NEITHER Coakley's nor Brown's proposals really addressed their families economic concerns.
So based on this data at least, Brown's election was only a referendum on Obama's Presidency amongst a minority of the voters.
It's just not so simple.
however and they feel let down.
I am one of those people. Still on Obama's side. But desperately hoping he changes his ways before it it too late. I would approve of Obama in a poll because, at this point at least, I believe he still represents the best chance for change in this country. Perhaps it is this Obama that the people of Massachusetts approve of while rejecting some of his policies.
Regardless of the polls, It's beginning to appear that the White House is treating the rout in Massachusetts as a wake up call.
You are right in respect, it just isn't so simple.