TruPolitics

“It is to me a new and consolatory proof that wherever the people are well-informed they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.”

 —Thomas Jefferson, 1789.

“The Republican from Massachusetts has the Senate floor.” That’s a line we never thought we’d hear. On Tuesday, Scott Brown, a little known state senator, defeated Democrat Martha Coakley by over 100,000 votes in a special election for the seat held by the late Ted Kennedy for 47 years. This wasn’t just any election; it was a statement victory that reaffirmed the fundamental American experiment.

The significance Mr. Brown’s victory is marked by the fact that he simply was not supposed to win. In fact, he was supposed to get crushed (down 30% in the polls in early December). Massachusetts is one of America’s most liberal states—Democrats out-register Republicans nearly 3-1 (only 15% of voters are registered with the GOP). The last time a Republican held a Senate seat in Massachusetts was in the 1970s, and President Obama won the deep blue state by 26 points just 14 months ago.

So how did Scott Brown win?

He brought the race beyond the boarders of the Bay State. The context of the times made the election truly historic—a victory for Mr. Brown meant Republicans could break the Democrats’ filibuster-proof majority. Americans were now able to choose the course they wanted for their nation. The answer was clear, and given President Obama’s recent victory, ironic: Change.

In its one year in power, the Democrat super-majority partnered with the Obama Administration to pass the largest spending bill in history ($787 billion stimulus), intervene deeply in private industry (corporate pay restrictions, AIG/GM/Chrysler takeover, TARP), widen massive entitlement programs, and propose controversial healthcare and cap-and-trade legislation. Partisan, hardball politics became the norm; the party finally had its chance to exercise and implement starkly liberal policy. Americans lost jobs at nearly record rates, and the national deficit ballooned.

Scott Brown decided to make the race a referendum on those liberal policies. He highlighted his opposition to the healthcare reform bill, runaway spending, and mounting deficits. He asked voters to choose between big government liberalism and Constitutional conservatism. He spoke openly about free market capitalism, job creation, and fiscal restraint. He even called upon Massachusetts’s most famous son, John F. Kennedy, highlighting the former president’s successful supply-side cuts. He drew a line in the sand between himself and President Obama’s aggressive agenda. He won.

Political spinsters from the left are desperately trying to downplay the results, saying Ms. Coakley ran a poor campaign and that Democrats took the race for granted. Such sentiments are at best disingenuous, predictable tactics used to blame the losing candidate—now the sacrificial lamb—in order to distance the party and its underlying ideology from the loss. Ms. Coakley was a strong enough candidate to win a sharply contested primary, dominating a field of four experienced and influential Democrats. She was a strong enough candidate to be the popularly elected Attorney General for the state. Most importantly, she was a Democrat running for office in Massachusetts. She lost.

Our nation’s leaders would be wise to take notice: Mr. Brown’s win was a powerful statement about what Americans want from their country. When considered with the landmark GOP victories in the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races last November (states which Obama carried 53% – 46% and 57% – 42%, respectively), Mr. Brown’s victory is evidence of a roaring tide of discontent with liberal policy.

At its core, America is fundamentally center-right, built upon foundational conservative values of limited government, fiscal restraint, and personal responsibility. The nation has been differentiated since its creation by firm commitments to liberty and personal freedom. In America, individuals have the essential right to determine their own outcomes, to, as Abraham Lincoln once said, “Eat the bread, without leave of anybody else, which [their] own hand earns.” We are a free nation, and freedom demands exceptionally limited government.

The American experiment—government by the people and for the people—was bred of discontent with the heavy-handed rule of the British monarchy. The experiment marched on in the face of socialism and communism, as central governments around the world attempted to control society in order to dictate outcomes. In 2009, we learned that some would like to “Change” the character of our nation to reflect that brand of government. In 2010, the Massachusetts election was a referendum on who we are as a country. America’s voice was heard loud and clear.

-Matt Benchener is Supervisor of Newtown Township and Founder of TruPolitics.net