The Stakes in Massachusetts

01/19/2010

The stakes in today’s senatorial election in Massachusetts could not be higher.

In the short term, the status of the Democrat’s filibuster-proof majority in the Senate is directly dependent upon the outcome. In the immediate term, the government takeover of the health care industry will likely be determined. And, in the long term, the very existence of the free enterprise system hands in the balance.

If the Democrat candidate, Massachusetts’ Attorney General Martha Coakley, wins “the Kennedy seat,” as she likes to call it, the status quo will be preserved. And the Obama agenda will be pushed forward with all haste, regardless of its popularity, or lack of the same, as evidenced by the escalating health care push despite popular opposition now at nearly 60 percent.

If Republican candidate, State Senator Scott Brown, pulls the upset the latest polls suggest, not only would passage of “Obamacare” be severely jeopardized, the Obama agenda would suffer a critical, perhaps even fatal, blow. And Washington politicians who heretofore
were inclined to ignore local opposition to Washington hegemony would be forced to reevaluate their votes – or their careers.

Up until now, the politicians have shown little short of open disdain for the crescendo of popular outrage over the Obama-orchestrated expansion of the federal government. When “Tea Partiers” and their millions of like-minded supporters nationwide, rallied against TARP, deficit spending, TALF, Obamacare, and the government’s takeovers of the banking, housing, investment, and automotive industries, they were scorned as “un-American” (Pelosi), “evil-mongers” (Reid), and “game players” who “drive a truck” (Obama).

Important debates on health care, the increase in the national debt, and increased deficit spending were staged in highly unusual weekend sessions. Key votes were intentionally scheduled for the middle of the night. And negotiations were held behind closed doors in direct violation of Obama’s pledge of C-SPAN broadcast “transparency.”

With the shock of Brown’s ascendancy, however, the politician’s disdain began to subside. And a Brown victory today would force scores of Senate and House members to decide whether their own political futures were worth continuing to support Obama’s heavy-handed attempt to radically expand the size and scope of government.

So, the stakes in Massachusetts today could not be higher. Truly responsive government, nationalized health care, and the future of the free enterprise system hang in the balance. While this paper does not endorse candidates, it does embrace the idea that the Massachusetts’ senatorial election is not about “the Kennedy seat” – any more than installing lockstep government control is the politicians’ prerogative.

And we hope the Democrats in Washington keep that in mind as the vote comes in.