The win last night by Republican Scott Brown in the heart of one brand of American liberalism was not unexpected... well, not unexpected over the last few weeks. I took the opportunity to follow the result as as they came in via that marvel of modern technology, AM radio. There were a few good points made by WBZ's coverage. One thing is that the Republic vote did not go up in many local districts compared to the Obama - McCain 2008 presidential vote. Democrats stayed away and the Republican vote held. Independents and high turn out in sleepy districts won the day.
But it is hard to extrapolate from US political events. It is one of the beauties of their decentralized system. While the congressional losses for conservatives in upstate New York in 2009 do not stand as "a message to Washington" the tea leaves of this democratic loss will be read exactly as that. Also, in any recession and in any mid-term election there is also a desire to throw the bums out. Yet, there is a need to do something. One of the issues of the right is that, as WBZ's Dan Rea pointed out a number of times last night, the Republicans are the "party of no" - by which he means they actually stand for nothing so much as they stand against things. "Taking America Back" is not a policy or platform. It is a Hallmark card for the grumpy. You can see the same thing in Canada. What does our national government stand for? What is the vision? "Not Grit" seems to still be the theme even though the Grits haven't effectively ran anything since Paul Martin decided to commit fratricide almost a decade ago.
Comments
Ben (The Tiger) - January 20, 2010 8:34 AM
Alan, the Dems have been pitching that "Party of No" label since last March.
It isn't working -- last night should show that, at the very least.
Being against Obama's agenda works just fine -- for now. Just like being against Bush's agenda worked wonders for the Dems in 2006. (And there are plenty of things the GOP is for, and time in the wilderness has been useful for refining it -- you just don't agree with those stances. Which is fine.)
When an explicitly affirmative platform will be needed is 2012 -- and that's the job of the next presidential nominee.
Alan - January 20, 2010 8:53 AM
So what is the policy? Please forward details.
The "party of no" is exactly where conservatives are at. It may be necessary at this point but as the Reform movement morphing into Harper shows, it doesn't stand for much in terms of effective policy change.
Ben (The Tiger) - January 20, 2010 9:01 AM
In principle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_of_Liberty
In practice, well, it can be applied in a number of ways. Education reforms (vouchers, charter schools, etc. -- watch Christie in NJ), tax cuts, and... well, the third rail that needs tackling sometime is entitlements reform.
Alan - January 20, 2010 9:52 AM
Vision. Statement.
You attack the Dems for having a plan on health reform that has too many words and doesn't make sense. Ideological vision statements don't make for good law. I thought the GWB years were proof enough of that for anyone. So what is the actual plan for anything? Not the topics as conservatives like to trot out but the actual plan?
The only actual practicing conservative I see these days is NY Governor Paterson.
Stumack - January 20, 2010 10:49 AM
"...they actually stand for nothing so much as they stand against things..." Sounds more like the Liberals to me, not the Tories, Alan. The Liberals have become nothing more than the party of "not Harper".
Alan - January 20, 2010 3:08 PM
See, that's what I mean. They are so into negation they are even "not not".