What Happens Next

Tuesday’s Republican victory in Massachusetts proved only one thing: voters are angry. And when people are angry, they often make irrational decisions, like electing a former nude model to the United States Senate. Less than 48 hours after his unlikely win, senator-elect Scott Brown is already raising eyebrows across the nation.

In his victory speech, Brown offered up his daughters to “anyone who’s watching throughout the country.” Now, that’s family values. This bizarre incident even prompted conservative demagogue Glenn Beck to speculate that Brown’s career, “could end with a dead intern.”

The Senator-elect’s strange behavior isn’t my only reason for questioning voters’ judgment, however. Rather, The Bay State’s decision to send Brown to Washington is irrational because his statements clearly contradict the political values of those who elected him.

The sentiment I’ve heard expressed most often by disgruntled tea partiers is animosity directed at “too big to fail” financial institutions (for wrecking the economy) and the federal government (for bailing out those banks with taxpayer money). If that’s the case, they elected the wrong candidate to stick it to Wall Street’s fat cat financiers.

Martha Coakley, the defeated Democrat, enthusiastically endorsed a temporary tax on banking behemoths to recoup taxpayer losses from the TARP fund. Brown denounced this tax and vowed to vote against it in the Senate. So, I’m not sure what petulant populists gained by electing a man who openly opposes their expressed interests.

Perhaps, the reactionary wave sweeping across our country crested with Brown’s victory and the tide of hysteria is finally beginning to recede. Now that they’ve blown off some steam, maybe frustrated independent voters are ready to come back to their senses and get down to business.

Meanwhile, Democrats need to recalibrate their message. A recent NY Times article on the subject offered some useful advice. First, they need to aggressively confront Wall Street. Since the days of Andrew Jackson, Democrats have been the party of the people. They need take back this mantle by ensuring that taxpayers are made whole again.

Their strategy must also include stronger financial regulation of investment banks, especially those dealing in the exotic, derivatives market. Establishing a new Consumer Protection Agency to curb the worst abuses of the credit card industry is essential as well.

Finally, Democrats need to address our mounting national debt and budget deficit. The Bush Administration saddled us with a $482 billion deficit and the highest national debt in American history. It’s time to bring those numbers back under control and Democrats have a solid track record of doing so. After all, President Clinton left office with a $230 billion budget surplus.

What happens next will determine our nation’s future. The status quo is unsustainable, especially in regard to our economic, environmental, energy and health care policies. The American People elected President Obama with a strong mandate for change. We can’t afford to let the irrational decisions of an angry mob distract us from achieving our goals.

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “What Happens Next

  1. Suffice it to say that nowhere in your post did you articulate any rational thought.

    It opposition to TARP & Financial Institution Bailouts the Tea Partiers are opposed to WELFARE. In part and in total. What the voters did Tues day was wield a death blow to WELFARE in effectively stopping the most unsustainable welfare program ever envisioned by the Modern American Liberals & Democrats otherwise known as The Progressive Fascists.

    The only Hope that those of us who oppose the MALD today desire is for Brown’s election stop the Obama Rallyists. We hope Brown is the antithesis of Chamberlain and the Nuremberg Rallyists.

    Eminence

    • I beg to differ. I formulated a thesis statement (that the decision to elect Brown was irrational) and then went on to support that statement with facts and evidence, which I clearly cited with links to my original sources. That is the very definition of rational thought. Literally.

      Also, “progressive fascist” is an oxymoron. Fascism, coined by Italian dictator Benito Mussolini, refers specifically to a right-wing, nationalist movement.

      Finally, I don’t understand your references to Neville Chamberlain or Nuremberg. Please elaborate if you want me to respond.

      • Have you ever wondered why fascism is defined as being a right-wing phenomenon? What are the differences in fascism and communism?

        • Fascism, Nazism (National Socialism), socialism and communism are all different ideologies that span the entire political spectrum, from far right to far left.

          Specifically, fascism refers to a nationalist government that tightly controls all aspects of society including media, business and industry. No one can seriously argue that anybody in the Obama Administration actually wants to implement fascism here in America.

          Furthermore, if universal health care made a country inherently fascist, then the vast majority of western democracies would be defined as such. You can see the obvious flaw in that logic.

          • I’ve read this already in your post above. I’m not arguing that the Obama Administration is fascist. I’m asking what is the difference in communism and fascism?

  2. As I stated to you elsewhere, you’re playing semantical badminton. The “Left/Right Wing” continuum & polarity of which you refer only has meaning and is relative to the extreme statists of the non-democratic nationlists of Old Europe. The meaning and definition that you hammer and sickle to death are passe.

    Nothing about those Fascists, Nazis, Socialists and Communists can in any pretense be characterized as Conservative in this, the Constitutional Republic of the United States of America.

    However, the Modern American Liberals and Democrats are indeed Fascists and are willing to employ any kind of ‘ism to impose their will on the people.

    The Modern Obama Liberal and Democrats are nazis (reminescent of the Nuremberg Rallyists and in their lacking of intellectual integrity) and are willing to impose their will on the people.

    The Congressional Democrats are the current equivalient of the former Politburo and willing to impose their will on the people.

    You are welcome. I just had to give you some reference in the Modern American Political Landscape because your attempts to equate the “right wing fascists” with the Modern American Conservative is factually, historically and politically invalid.

    Eminence

    • Not quite, I’m way more into semantic jai alai. I believe it’s the most challenging of the philosophical racket sports.

      Fascism, Nazism (National Socialism), socialism and communism are all different ideologies that span the entire political spectrum, from far right to far left. You can’t just lump them all together under some imagined, pan-European, dystopian umbrella.

      And while we’re at it, why pick on Europe? After all, there are socialist and communist governments all over the globe, including right off our shore in Cuba.

      Specifically, fascism refers to a nationalist government that tightly controls all aspects of society including media, business and industry. No one can seriously argue that anybody in the Obama Administration actually wants to implement fascism here in America.

      Furthermore, if universal health care made a country inherently fascist, then the vast majority of western democracies would be defined as such. You can see the obvious flaw in that logic.

  3. Pingback: Final Ethics Alarms on the Coakley-Brown Race: « Ethics Alarms

    • I don’t think Glenn Beck is “Satan in a suit.” That would be giving him way too much credit. I look at him more like an evil Homer Simpson, fat, crazy, crass and shameless but, at the end of the day, completely harmless and fun to laugh at.

Comments are closed.