Brown wins! What’s next?

We had a rare dose of January election fever because of the timing of a special election in the state of Massachusetts won by Senator-elect Scott Brown. Combine that with the inaugurations of Gov. Bob McDonnell in Virginia and Gov. Chris Christie in New Jersey (both Republicans) and obviously the Republican Party is feeling its oats at the moment.

But that party is over, and now the efforts become localized as most states will go through their primary season beginning next month with Illinois. Maryland and Delaware are among a handful of states with exceptionally late primaries, our September 14 date falling just seven weeks before the November 2 election. I actually like the compressed campaign season, although others in my circle of party leaders would prefer an earlier primary – particularly when there’s a contested race. Some may recall there was an abortive bid to change Maryland’s primary day to a June date back in 2006 when it appeared that two Democrat heavyweights (Martin O’Malley and Doug Duncan) would contest their primary while then-Governor Bob Ehrlich was unopposed on the GOP side. But Duncan withdrew his bid for personal reasons and the controversy died soon afterward.

Obviously the Brown race became nationalized. Even among my circle of Facebook friends, which is relatively Maryland-centric and lopsidedly Republican, there were a few sporting the Brown campaign logo in place of their profile picture. The Our Country Deserves Better PAC found that commercial time in Massachusetts was getting so expensive for their pro-Brown ads that they opted to just buy available national spots – the small difference in price was worth it to them.

Nationalizing local races seems to be a successful path for Republicans. Given their status as bellweather races just a few months into the Democrats’ takeover of the presidency, the elections for governor in New Jersey and Virginia became nationalized just like the Brown vs. Coakley race in Massachusetts and the Hoffman/Owens/Scozzafava Congressional race in New York’s 23rd District. In three of the four races the GOP candidate won and Democrat Bill Owens won in NY-23 with a bare majority (and the endorsement of nominal Republican Scozzafava when she withdrew at the end.)

One thing this Massachusetts race also proves is that being associated with the TEA Party movement can help a candidate win. I think they learned a little bit from the NY-23 race, with the biggest lesson being that we shouldn’t demand utter purity from a good candidate. Yes, I’m not completely down with Scott Brown regarding health care since he thinks that, while the bill currently in Congress is bad, as an idea compulsory health insurance is good. This is from his campaign site:

I believe that all Americans deserve health care coverage, but I am opposed to the health care legislation that is under consideration in Congress and will vote against it. It will raise taxes, increase government spending and lower the quality of care, especially for elders on Medicare. I support strengthening the existing private market system with policies that will drive down costs and make it easier for people to purchase affordable insurance. In Massachusetts, I support the 2006 healthcare law that was successful in expanding coverage, but I also recognize that the state must now turn its attention to controlling costs.

However, I think Brown can be persuaded by either the argument of allowing freedom of choice (those who don’t want to purchase health insurance should be allowed to maintain that right) or the supposition that each state should be allowed to determine its own way as Massachusetts did. Their needs aren’t the same as Maryland’s nor is either state totally congruent with a state like Mississippi. In any case, his feet need to be kept to the fire like anyone else – he may have won, but let’s not annoint him savior or start the comparisons to Ronald Reagan just yet. It’s not like he just came in off the street to become Senator – in fact, Brown had worked in the public sector for almost 20 years and spent the last 12 in Massachusetts state government as an elected official. In many ways, he just happened to be the right guy with the right message at the right time.

This can also be an object lesson to those who have never been in politics about the value of spending some time in the “belly of the beast.” Rarely (there are exceptions to the rule, but not many) does a person jump straight into a federal office without spending some time honing their craft and message at the local level. It also gives them an appreciation for having to deal with the levels of government above them and why things need to change.

Obviously there are a few in the TEA Party movement who are impatient and want to jump up to the top in order to shake things up. But my advice to them is to start at the lowest levels first – I can use the analogy of professional baseball and say that almost everyone who plays in the big leagues spent at least some time in the minors improving their skills and perfecting their talents before being ready for The Show.

As a member of a Republican Central Committee, one of our tasks is to find people willing to step up and run for office. Obviously being a County Councilman isn’t as glamourous and doesn’t have the perks associated with being a Congressman but, like Scott Brown, you need to start someplace. Unlike some others I know, I don’t mind seeing primary challenges to incumbents and Lord knows we need new blood in some positions.

So one thing I hope stems from the TEA Party movement and its recent political successes is a willingness for people who have the talent needed and believe in a pro-liberty message – one advocating limited and fiscally reponsible government at all levels – to stand up and say “I want to be a public servant and step up to the plate.”

It’s our time – let’s take advantage while we still can.

Author: Michael

It's me from my laptop computer. View all posts by Michael