There is less than a week left in the special election for US Senate from Massachusetts, and for the first time in my memory, the Bay State has a competitive final election for a Senate seat.
This in itself is remarkable news. Who would have thought this race would be so tight? After all, this election will determine who succeeds Ted Kennedy, the 37-year veteran of the Senate, who in his nine (yes, nine!) elections to the Senate never won by fewer than 17 percentage points (the closets being his 17-point win over Mitt Romney in 1994).
Until Kennedy’s death last summer, John Kerry was Massachusetts’ “Junior” Senator, having served a mere 26 years in his seat, and having succeeded another Democrat, the late Paul Tsongas.
Edward Brooke was the last Republican elected to the US Senate from Massachusetts (and, incidentally, he was also the first African American from any state to be elected to the US Senate), having been last elected in 1972. To have voted in that election one would have had to have been born 18 years earlier, in 1954. This means that today no one in Massachusetts under the age of 55 has actually participated in an election that resulted in the election of a Republican US Senator. Amazing.
Many of my partisan friends from the Left will respond “Good,” and wish to hold onto the seat for the Democrats. I challenge those folks who think that way to answer honestly, were you among those who said during the presidency of George W. Bush that things were too “partisan?” If so, I ask you to open your own mind and to consider what it might be like if we actually elected Scott Brown this coming Tuesday, putting a Republican in the Senate representing Massachusetts.
Having bi-partisan representation in the Senate would change the view Massachusetts voters have of our political parties and of government. We would hear, with equal spin and credibility, the policy views of each side of the aisle, rather than one being dominant and the other routinely discounted, if heard at all. We would see that there are some issues on which philosophy (or, put cynically, partisan politics) wins out, and on which our two Senators would disagree, but amicably. We would also see that on some issues, what is truly good for Massachusetts would win out, and we would see our Senators from each side of the aisle working together for our Commonwealth. Wouldn’t that be refreshing?
Having bi-partisan Senate representation might also change the way our Senators (and other elected officials) view their jobs, as well. Neither Republican nor Democrat Senator could hide behind partisan smokescreens on an issue of true importance to Massachusetts. If the two Senators genuinely disagreed, it would be great for the citizens of Massachusetts to hear that conversation, and to do some real thinking of their own as to what they actually believe and think. Wouldn’t that be something?
Note that I referred to a hypothetical disagreement between our Senators as a “conversation,” not a “debate.” Elections are tough ordeals, with harsh words and serious charges often exchanged. Governing well, however, calls for bi-partisan work, and a willingness to come together in discussion around what is truly important. One of the hallmarks of Ted Kennedy’s career was his ability to befriend those across the political aisle, including Senator Orrin Hatch (R – Utah), among others. I have no reason to suspect that John Kerry and Scott Brown couldn’t have a very positive, respectful relationship focused on what is good for Massachusetts, and wouldn’t that be great for our political climate?
I know some will argue that because there is currently a Democrat in the White House Massachusetts is better off with another Democrat Senator. To those folks I offer the reminder that President Obama is up for election in two years, and if a Republican can win in Massachusetts, no seat is safe! We don’t know who will be in the White House in 2013 and beyond; why not hedge our bets and have a Senator from each party?
Most importantly, having Senators from the two major parties will force each to the middle. John Kerry could not afford to be too Liberal, nor could Scott Brown afford to be too Conservative. They would each have to pull their own voting record toward the great middle and, most importantly, the position on each issue that best serves Massachusetts.
So set aside the concerns about party. Set aside all the talk about “the 60th vote for health care” and “the 41st vote against Obama-care;” this is an opportunity to focus our state’s two votes solely on what is good for Massachusetts.
Scott Brown himself is trying out the line that this election would be a “test-drive,” of sorts. He correctly observes that whoever is elected next week will be up for election again in 2012. “Try me out,” he’s saying.
I must say, I’d like to see a little bi-partisan representation.
Our state hasn’t seen it in the US Senate since Ed Brooke.
If you’re under 55, you’ve never really seen it.
Next week, we might all see it.
Best of all, it’s up to us.
We can make it happen.
To borrow a phrase, “Yes, We Can.”
This in itself is remarkable news. Who would have thought this race would be so tight? After all, this election will determine who succeeds Ted Kennedy, the 37-year veteran of the Senate, who in his nine (yes, nine!) elections to the Senate never won by fewer than 17 percentage points (the closets being his 17-point win over Mitt Romney in 1994).
Until Kennedy’s death last summer, John Kerry was Massachusetts’ “Junior” Senator, having served a mere 26 years in his seat, and having succeeded another Democrat, the late Paul Tsongas.
Edward Brooke was the last Republican elected to the US Senate from Massachusetts (and, incidentally, he was also the first African American from any state to be elected to the US Senate), having been last elected in 1972. To have voted in that election one would have had to have been born 18 years earlier, in 1954. This means that today no one in Massachusetts under the age of 55 has actually participated in an election that resulted in the election of a Republican US Senator. Amazing.
Many of my partisan friends from the Left will respond “Good,” and wish to hold onto the seat for the Democrats. I challenge those folks who think that way to answer honestly, were you among those who said during the presidency of George W. Bush that things were too “partisan?” If so, I ask you to open your own mind and to consider what it might be like if we actually elected Scott Brown this coming Tuesday, putting a Republican in the Senate representing Massachusetts.
Having bi-partisan representation in the Senate would change the view Massachusetts voters have of our political parties and of government. We would hear, with equal spin and credibility, the policy views of each side of the aisle, rather than one being dominant and the other routinely discounted, if heard at all. We would see that there are some issues on which philosophy (or, put cynically, partisan politics) wins out, and on which our two Senators would disagree, but amicably. We would also see that on some issues, what is truly good for Massachusetts would win out, and we would see our Senators from each side of the aisle working together for our Commonwealth. Wouldn’t that be refreshing?
Having bi-partisan Senate representation might also change the way our Senators (and other elected officials) view their jobs, as well. Neither Republican nor Democrat Senator could hide behind partisan smokescreens on an issue of true importance to Massachusetts. If the two Senators genuinely disagreed, it would be great for the citizens of Massachusetts to hear that conversation, and to do some real thinking of their own as to what they actually believe and think. Wouldn’t that be something?
Note that I referred to a hypothetical disagreement between our Senators as a “conversation,” not a “debate.” Elections are tough ordeals, with harsh words and serious charges often exchanged. Governing well, however, calls for bi-partisan work, and a willingness to come together in discussion around what is truly important. One of the hallmarks of Ted Kennedy’s career was his ability to befriend those across the political aisle, including Senator Orrin Hatch (R – Utah), among others. I have no reason to suspect that John Kerry and Scott Brown couldn’t have a very positive, respectful relationship focused on what is good for Massachusetts, and wouldn’t that be great for our political climate?
I know some will argue that because there is currently a Democrat in the White House Massachusetts is better off with another Democrat Senator. To those folks I offer the reminder that President Obama is up for election in two years, and if a Republican can win in Massachusetts, no seat is safe! We don’t know who will be in the White House in 2013 and beyond; why not hedge our bets and have a Senator from each party?
Most importantly, having Senators from the two major parties will force each to the middle. John Kerry could not afford to be too Liberal, nor could Scott Brown afford to be too Conservative. They would each have to pull their own voting record toward the great middle and, most importantly, the position on each issue that best serves Massachusetts.
So set aside the concerns about party. Set aside all the talk about “the 60th vote for health care” and “the 41st vote against Obama-care;” this is an opportunity to focus our state’s two votes solely on what is good for Massachusetts.
Scott Brown himself is trying out the line that this election would be a “test-drive,” of sorts. He correctly observes that whoever is elected next week will be up for election again in 2012. “Try me out,” he’s saying.
I must say, I’d like to see a little bi-partisan representation.
Our state hasn’t seen it in the US Senate since Ed Brooke.
If you’re under 55, you’ve never really seen it.
Next week, we might all see it.
Best of all, it’s up to us.
We can make it happen.
To borrow a phrase, “Yes, We Can.”
No comments:
Post a Comment