What astonishes me about the election of Scott Brown to the United States Senate – from Massachusetts of all states that Democratic stronghold – is the lengths to which the left (aka “liberals” although a case can be made that conservatives of a libertarian stripe are the true liberals) is to explain this as having anything other to do with what is obvious and evident.
“The people could not possibly have made a semi-informed semi-rational decision. The people could not possibly have voted for Brown because they agreed more with his campaign platform”.
Oh no. It is because he is a man (in a state that recently had a woman governor who was the first to give birth while in office). It is because he is good looking (true – so what do we do with other Massachusetts politicians?) It is because of a generalized fear and anger. It is because Coakley ran a weak campaign (which is true – have to give them that). It is because Brown ran a brilliant campaign (which is also true – have to give them that as well). It is because people turn against incumbents in poor economic times. It is because. It is because. It absolutely could not be because Scott Brown said he would work to lower taxes and stop runaway government spending and growth and stop Obamacare. It could not be because of the issues Scott Brown actually ran on. It could not possibly be because even in heavily Democratic Massachusetts the people are concerned about the direction of this nation under President Barack Obama and (this part is also important) Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
It amazes me how supposedly intelligent people can be so dismissive of what is right in front of their eyes.
They can disagree with Brown. They can say “the people of Massachusetts are wrong”. But to say they had no earthly idea what they were doing? That it was a completely uninformed and irrational vote?
Here is the colossal problem with that kind of thinking. So… what about the election of Barack Obama?
Which is why I was careful to say “semi-informed and semi-rational”. The election of Barack Obama does indeed demonstrate that the American electorate is not always motivated by logic and evidence.
And for the president to say the people of Massachusetts were still voting against eight years of George Bush?!? Wow. What breathtaking power he has! It is like some Christians who blame everything on Satan.
Charles Krauthammer again applies his ruthless rationality to the left’s efforts to deny the meaning of Brown’s election.
You would think lefties could discern a proletarian vanguard when they see one [referring to the tea party movement and town halls]. Yet they kept denying the reality of the rising opposition to Obama’s social-democratic agenda when summer turned to fall and Virginia and New Jersey turned Republican in the year’s two gubernatorial elections.
…
Democratic cocooners will tell themselves that Coakley was a terrible candidate who even managed to dis Curt Schilling. True, Brown had Schilling. But Coakley had Obama. When the bloody sock beats the presidential seal — of a man who had them swooning only a year ago — something is going on beyond personality.
That something is substance — political ideas and legislative agendas. Democrats, if they wish, can write off their Massachusetts humiliation to high unemployment, to Coakley, or, the current favorite among sophisticates, to generalized anger. That implies an inchoate, unthinking lashing-out at whoever happens to be in power — even at your liberal betters who are forcing on you an agenda that you can’t even see is in your own interest.
Democrats must so rationalize, otherwise they must take democracy seriously, and ask themselves: If the people really don’t want it, could they possibly have a point?
Read the whole thing at National Review Online.
Dear God – the people couldn’t possibly disagree with our agenda could they?!?
