Post-Brown comments

In the wake of the resounding Democratic defeat in Massachusetts there are, predictably, no end of commentators dissecting the defeat, mostly with a spin that conforms to their own political beliefs. Thus conservatives are sure this is the beginning of a tsunami that will sweep Democrats out of office, while liberals are equally sure that this was just a local problem with a bad candidate. Of the few relatively balanced comments I have read, I recommend Charles Lane's article Why it's so hard to pass health-care reform in the January 21, Washington Post.

Lane points out that the framers of the Constitution worried specifically about a powerful minority, or even an arrogant majority, imposing their will on the nation. Hence the cumbersome bicameral legislature, and the checks and balances between Congress, the President, and the judiciary. Hence also the emphasis on states rights. One might decry the 60-vote rule in the Senate, but in fact major, life-changing legislation ought to take more than a bare majority to pass. If one can't get 60% support for a measure, perhaps it shouldn't pass.

I also recommend Hubris is Ruining the Democrats by William Murchison on RealClearPolitics. It certainly is true that Washington politicians have come to see themselves almost as demi-gods, steering the nation from a lofty perch in the Capital Building. This applies equally to the Democrats in this administration as it did to the Republicans in the last administration. It was this hubris, I think, that led the current Congress to think it could ram through a sweeping health care bill with so little regard to voter opinion. If the angry town halls last summer didn't give enough warning of voter discontent, the recent polls should have. Yet for the most part the Congressional leadership ignored these indicators. If that isn't hubris in an elected official, I don't know what is.