Lessons for Obama. George Will, long America's regnant Tory, sees four "silver linings" in 44's Massachusetts spanking: it will (a) moderate his agenda, (b) lessen policy uncertainty, (c) inject realism into 44's calculus and (d) end what GW calls "the curse of 60":
Obama is now liberated from The Curse of 60 -- exactly the minimum number of senators necessary to move the party's agenda. Democrats would not have reached 60 had not Alaska Republican Ted Stevens been convicted, on the eve of the election, in a corruption trial tainted by gross prosecutorial abuse. And had not Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Specter, facing defeat in a Republican primary, suddenly discovered -- who knew? -- that he really is a Democrat. And had not Minnesota Democrat Al Franken defeated incumbent Norm Coleman after an excruciatingly close election, followed by a protracted and controversial recount. And, perhaps, if Illinois, Delaware and New York had elected rather than appointed senators to replace Obama, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton.
Be that as it may, the Democratic Senate caucus landed, like a roulette ball destined for a dangerous slot, on 60. It then learned that when all Democrats are indispensable, every Democrat can be an extortionist. So there have been serial purchases of 60th votes for health legislation. This squalid commerce (special benefits tailored for Florida's Medicare Advantage clients, for Louisiana and Nebraska, and for union members) did almost as much as the legislation itself to discredit the entire sorry business.
GW offers tart advice to 44:
If Obama can now resist the temptation of faux populism, if he does not rage, like Lear on the heath, against banks, he can be what Americans, eager for adult supervision, elected him to be -- a prudent grown-up. For this elegant and intelligent man to suddenly discover his inner William Jennings Bryan ("You shall not crucify America upon a cross of credit-default swaps") would be akin to Fred Astaire donning coveralls and clodhoppers.
Advice for GOP. Bill Kristol says "Heckuva job, Brownie!" and means it. Comparing Mr. Brown to Jimmy Stewart's 1939 "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" Kristol writes:
But the biggest similarity is this: Americans liked an underdog in 1939. They liked one in 2010. When the establishment is arrogant and unresponsive, they tend to side with a Jefferson Smith/Scott Brown figure.
In 1939, that establishment seemed to be made up of conservative economic royalists. Today, that establishment seems to consist of liberal political royalists.
This difference is, politically, a big deal. It is at the heart of the Republicans’ opportunity to build on what Scott Brown has accomplished. It suggests the GOP, and the conservative movement, should embrace the kind of enlightened, good-natured, constructive populism that Brown demonstrated in his campaign. And it means resisting the twin perils of Republican establishmentarian royalism on the one hand, and a bitter and destructive populism on the other.
Fred Barnes sees in Scott's non-Brownian Motion a uniting of four political segments in common cause: tea partiers, conservatives, independents and moderates.
Bottom Line. Year Two holds promise & peril for both parties. Democrats must find a viable way forward, while the GOP must strike a balance between reaching across the aisle and standing fast in hopes that come November they will emerge with a far larger contingent in both houses, and thus exercise more political bargaining leverage than the razor-thin edge they now possess.
Comments