WHAT CAN BROWN DO FOR YOU: The Boston Tea Party All Over Again
The more I think about it, the more I am shocked and amazed at what Scott Brown, Senator Scot Brown, did in Massachusetts. It has been called a miracle, but I don’t that is fair to Scott Brown or the people who voted for him. No, what happened in Massachusetts is the beginning of a revolution, a revolution of the people of this country against tyranny of the elected class.
When a group of Massachusetts colonists, in December of 1773, dumped a shipload of tea into Boston Harbor, they did so to, once again, tell the British government that they were tired of being taxed and they were tired of being told what to do. That iconic act was another stepping stone towards the American Revolution. I think the people of Massachusetts have done it again. When you think about what Scott Brown did, objectively, you cannot dismiss the grass roots nature of his victory and the message it sends.
Consider the following.
1. Scott Brown had, until this election, only run and won for the Senate seat in the state legislature from his small district. Martha Coakley had been elected to statewide office, Attorney General, twice.
2. Scott Brown ran as a Republican in a state where only 12% of the register voters are Republicans. He won 53% of the vote.
3. Brown spent a little over a half million dollars, Coakley, over four times that amount.
4. Massachusetts hasn’t elected a Republican Senator in over 30 years.
5. Coakley was running to fill the seat of Teddy Kennedy. The Kennedy family had endorsed her.
6. Massachusetts has voted overwhelmingly Democrat in nearly every election in recent history.
In other words, Coakley had everything going her way and, under normal circumstances, should have won easily. That’s the problem with revolutions. They sneak up on the powerful when they least expect it.
There are two things driving this grass roots revolution. The first is people are fed up with the growing reach and power of the federal government. People, by their very nature, seek freedom. To be sure, some things need to be regulated, but to live is to want to live freely and our federal government has grown into a giant, freedom-supressing, machine. The second thing is a growing disdain for the elected class. People are tired of being told how to live and what to do by people who a.) have never been there and done that themselves and, b.) create separate rules for them to live by. Obama would be wise to recognize that all policy issues and government actions can be measured against these two gauges. Health care reform, as it is being presented by the Democrats, is an offensive, overreaching encroachment of federal government into private life. That’s how most people feel. Period. It is also a ham handed smack down by the elected class of the people who gave them power. Fortunately for Republicans, this is a Democrat led initiative.
Exit polling showed, overwhelmingly, that people voted for Barack Obama because they wanted a new direction for the economy, for jobs. Only 5% said they wanted health care reform on the massive scale that Obama has delivered. Just like those colonist all those years ago who said they were fed up of being told what tea they had to buy and that they would have to pay a tax on it too! It eventually led to revolution. There is only so much people can take.
What form this revolution will take is still a mystery. A smackdown of Democrats and a windfall for Republicans? The emergence of a third party? A tax-payer revolt? Civil unrest? Civil war? Who knows, but whatever direction this revolution takes, rest assured, it is underway. What Scott Brown did was give a voice to the same kind of people threw those crates of tea into the harbor. His election in Massachusetts was the Boston Tea Party all over again.
The Other Side Says: January 25th, 2010 at 3:51 pm
oh my god buck; it’s an underdog winning a special election. that’s it. don’t read too much into it. brown ran a pretty good campaign while coakley failed miserably. she deserved to lose, especially with brown running on a platform of anger against the current government.
that anger wasn’t about anything that buck said. more people in massachusetts wanted obama to move farther left on health care than what the current bill was. where is the evidence that voters were angry at the political elite or wanted a revolution? this election was a choice of the lesser of two evils. both candidates had flaws, the voters showed that coakley had more.
but this post raises a larger issue: the tea party movement. buck seems to think that it is a legitimate political entity. sorry to break it to buck, but they aren’t. the tea baggers are too extreme for mainstream politics. if we’re looking at elections, why not talk about the election in new york where the candidate that the tea baggers endorsed lost…to a democrat.
this is one election. it should be a wake up call for democrats because they vastly underestimated republicans. but democrats will be fine.
Kaiser Says: January 25th, 2010 at 7:48 pm
This was a pleasant surprise indeed. Personally I had been supportive but somewhat skeptical about the impact of the Tea Party movement, but wow!
This really shows the kind of thing a real conservative can do, even in Massachusetts.
I’m going to give credit where credit’s due, however: thank you to all the Independents out there in MA who proved that they could make a difference. Thank you for being truly independent when it was most important and at such a vital point in time for our country.
I’m feeling a little pessimistic for the Democrats though. This could be a good time (or even the last time) that they could stop what they are doing, look around, and say “Hey, we’re alienating the very people with whom power and responsibility really rest in this country. Let’s work together on this.”
Somehow I don’t feel like that’s what they’re going to do.
Kudos to Scott Brown! I hope he does a good job.
Kaiser Says: January 26th, 2010 at 9:04 pm
Other Side, please stop calling them “tea baggers”. It implies that you of all people are on the same level of immaturity of people like Keith Olbermann, which I know is not the case.
Don’t bother bringing up “the Teabaggers invented the term”. I know, and it’s still offensive no matter who’s using it.
Although, you do have a point: this is simply a political victory, which may or may not be indicative of a centre-right shift. I hope it is.
I don’t know what you mean by “too extreme for mainstream politics”. They seem just fine to me; what’s the extreme part of it?
The Other Side Says: February 1st, 2010 at 9:01 pm
the tea-party movement (don’t you think someone would’ve thought about the ‘tea-bagger’ name before using it?) is not going to be a mainstream political movement. they are uninformed and are splitting the republican party. their politics are also forcing republicans to either agree or disagree with the tea-partiers which will turn off independent voters.
that happened in new york where a democrat won a seat in the house in a strongly republican district. conservatives went with the tea-party candidate instead of the republican and they lost.
what’s extreme about the tea party platform? death panels; birthers; all the stalin/hitler/mao comparisons to obama during the health care debate; the town hall meetings where tea-partiers shouted down any debate; bringing guns to health care protests; conspiracy theories; texas secession to name a few.
the tea parties have no solutions to problems, all they do is try and stop obama (evidenced by the stifling of debate of health care in town hall meetings). they are organized by corporations like freedom works, not a grass roots movement like they claim. and the worst thing is that they are not informed about the issues. that’s not really their fault because they are being taught by the right wing media. their anger is real but the they are dangerous to the political debate.
what have they added besides partisanship to an already politically divided country?
Young Conservative Says: February 2nd, 2010 at 6:24 pm
I really can’t stand you. Thats all I have to say, besides that Texas had reserved the right to secede before they ever became a state. And the right wing media?Oh, please. Give me a break.
Buck Says: February 3rd, 2010 at 4:22 pm
Other Side you seem to be forgetting that Brown’s victory comes after conservative victories in Virginia and New Jersey. Places where the opposition Democrats were not quite as lackluster as Coakley. You are delusional if you somehow think that the people of Massachusetts voted for Scott Brown because they wanted a more liberal version of ObamaCare. His entire campaign was based on “I will vote against this health care program.” By the way, the “Tea Party Movement” did not give themselves that nickname. That came from Keith Oberman. As for the Tea Party conservative that lost the election in New York you’ve got your facts wrong and you’re missing the elephant in the room. Douglas Hoffman was a third party candidate from the Conservative Party. The Republican’s ran a closet Democrat, who split the vote. For a “movement” such as the Conservative Party to field a candidate and only lose by about 4900 votes is a pretty big accomplishment.
Zack Says: February 4th, 2010 at 5:02 am
The Tea “partiers” are not a political party, as far as having candidates. As far as being a “mainstream political movement”…..they already are. More Americans now consider themselves conservatives than anything else, not Republican, but conservative. The tea-party supported candidate won in IL. They are watching AR. right now. Lincoln is in their crosshairs (personally, I like Jim Holt, but the lack of money and the fire to sell himself is gonna be a problem in the primary).
The Other Side Says: February 7th, 2010 at 1:33 am
young conservative, so because i disagree with you that means you can’t stand me? that kind of partisanship is splitting washington and the country. and there is a right wing media, its fox news.
buck, kaiser was the one who said that the tea partiers gave themselves the nickname, not me. mass. voters were opposed to the current health care bill, but not only for the reasons that republicans give. some voters wanted a more progressive bill and were against the current moderate bill. they voted for the person who opposed the bill which was brown. and hoffmann was the right’s candidate because the republican candidate conceded. the republicans didn’t field a candidate. the fact that she got any votes when she wasn’t on the ticket shows how split the party is. it was a strongly conservative district so it was more impressive that a democrat won.