Mr. Brown and His Truck Go to Washington

In the waning days of the 2008 Presidential election, Candidate Barack Obama spoke of transformation in the nation. His whole campaign was based on “Hope and Change” and many voters, who suffered from Bush-Cheney fatigue, years of war and anxiety over the state of the economy, cast their votes on a promise they may not have understood.

It became apparent, shortly after President Obama’s inauguration, what change the administration had in mind. Unending bail-outs, huge increases in government spending, soaring budget deficits, closing Gitmo, cap and trade, card-check, non-“shovel ready” stimulus spending. And a health-care plan that continued to lose public support and was only approved by the Senate after cutting special deals to many members to garner their support (the Louisiana purchase – $300 million to Mary Landrieu; The Cornhusker deal -$45 million to Senator Ben Nelson in Medicare cut exemptions, which his Nebraska constituents disapprove of by a margin of 63% to 35%; a $60 billion tax exemption from the “Cadillac” health-plan tax for Obama’s union friends; special deals for Big Pharma and Big Insurance, to name just a few). Most of this legislation was done behind closed doors and in many cases where Congress had no time to read the bills. So much for the change and transparency in the way Washington does business, promised by candidate Obama.

Since April 15, 2009, segments of the American electorate have been trying to get both President Obama’s and Congress’ attention. The message? Slow down, concentrate on the economy, don’t grow government, have more fiscal discipline. Tea Party rallies, town hall meetings, volumes of e-mails, letters and phone calls by constituents to their representatives and senators have been ignored by the majority and their concerns have been marginalized. President Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have been absolutely tone-deaf to these concerns and their arrogance about knowing what is best for the American people has both frustrated and angered voters.

President Obama may not have expected the kind of first anniversary gift he received from Massachusetts voters on Tuesday. The Democrats discounted victories by Governor Chris Christie (in the very Democratic state of New Jersey) and by Governor Bob McDonnell (in swing state Virginia) as anomalies and the result of local concerns. But how do they explain the election of Republican Scott Brown in the bluest of blue states, Massachusetts? Early indications are that they blame the Democrat candidate Martha Coakley for not working hard enough and for being a weak candidate. Probably right. If they are honest, however, Democrats will also admit that as they move forward on Obama’s large domestic agenda, they have not focused sufficiently on job creation and spent too much time on so-called health-care reform that Americans have increasingly rejected. Most Americans’ intuition tells them that big growth in government spending and big deficits crowd out the private sector where permanent jobs are created. Americans have seen unemployment rise from approximately 7.9 % when Obama was inaugurated to 10.2 % in the fall. Americans know that “Obamacare” will not increase access and lower medical costs, in spite of what the Democrats say. The math just doesn’t work.

Republicans may be tempted to say that Brown’s election is a repudiation of Obama’s health-care plan. Partly true. There is no question that Scott Brown won, maybe in large measure, because he told voters he was the 41st vote against “Obamacare”. But Scott Brown also won because independent-thinking Massachusetts citizens (like Independents across the country), a demographic responsible for bringing Obama to power, are angry at Washington. In his “acceptance” speech, Senator-elect Brown focused on an independent agenda, not on the Republican Party. Brown knows that Independents see problems with one-party rule. Independents, like all Americans, want jobs and lower deficits. They have as much disdain for Washington as Washington has shown them in the past year. They want their representatives to listen to their concerns and not tell them what they think is best for them. They are concerned about national security. They are anxious about their economic future and the fact that they may hand over to their children a weaker country than they were given.

What happened in Massachusetts should be a wake-up call to all of Washington, Democrats and Republicans alike. This country is still a center-right country. Voters don’t want too much interference by government. They want strong national security and low taxes. Americans are generous and willing to help those who cannot help themselves, but reject huge entitlements programs. Americans reject one-party rule and the arrogance of politicians who don’t remember that they work for their constituents and serve at their pleasure. Republicans got their wake-up call in 2006 when they were rejected because of their spending appetites and growth of government. The outcomes of the gubernatorial contests in New Jersey and Virginia and the Senate race in Massachusetts delivered similar message to Democrats. America faces some serious problems. Straightforward and bipartisan solutions are required. Common sense must be returned to ‘Washington; ideology must be abandoned. Most Americans are independent thinking and live in the center.

In an interview with ABC’s Jonathan Karl, Senator Evan Bayh, (D-IN) said that Democrats must not ignore the lessons of these recent elections. “There’s going to be a tendency on the part of our people to be in denial about all this [but] if you lose Massachusetts and that’s not a wake-up call, there’s no hope of waking up…The only way we are able to govern successfully in this country is by liberals and progressives making common cause with independents and moderates. Whenever you have just the furthest left elements of the Dem party attempting to impose their will on the rest of the country — that’s not going to work too well.” President Obama delivers his State of the Union address next week. He should give an indication at that time whether or not he has received the wake-up call and if the administration will hit the reset button and focus on the issues Americans really care about.