A Moderate Reaction to My Little State's Very Big Election

I never discuss politics here, but I feel like I have to get my take out there just this one time. Then I'll shut up. This entry will probably not make me popular with any of my friends, but I stand by what I write as thought-out and careful. Skip it if you'd like.

When I turned 18, I registered to vote but declined to affiliate myself with a political party. I knew that I leaned a bit to the left, but on the whole I was a fairly moderate thinker who preferred to vote on the issues and not on the parties. I would prefer that my politicians be fiscally responsible (though really, none ever are), but I have always strongly felt that social justice initiatives could be much better served by those in office. Although I had generally voted for Democrats when an election cycle came up, my beliefs did not align themselves with that party enough for me to want to declare it as my own. In my mind, the certainty that I was not a Republican was not a sufficient argument for being a Democrat. I decided that being a left-leaning independent was the best way to go, and I have proudly been one since. I was warmly receptive to Barack Obama's victory in 2008, and I was optimistic (or naive) enough to believe that our country could start coming together again.

That said, while I was probably blessed with the good fortune to be out of Massachusetts for the special election to fill the late Senator Ted Kennedy's seat, I watched with increasing irritation as our state's issue was turned into a circus by outside money and political noise. This election was not supposed to be a referendum on the national health care proposal, nor was it supposed to be an approval poll for President Obama's barely begun policy work.

Yes, I suppose that both parties quickly adopted the health care angle as soon as they realized that it was beneficial to align themselves with their national parties' support, and due to unfortunate coincidence it happens that this election result could very well enable or kill universal health care for all 50 states. I understand this.

But this is not a national election. We were voting for OUR senator, who has to serve OUR state for the next few years. Long after universal health care is either passed or abandoned, we will still have the winner of this race as an active policy maker, impacting our daily lives. One of our two Senate seats was not meant to be filled by a mere puppet of more nationally-minded interests. They are elected by the people to advocate for our specific state's interests at a national level.

It is with that in mind that I was very upset and somewhat angry with the outrageous amount of money, support, and advertisements that came pouring into MA from out-of-state non-constituents. This criticism extends equally to both parties. While Scott Brown may have kicked off the madness by loudly proclaiming that he would be the "41st vote" to kill the health care bill, Martha Coakley's campaign was only too happy to call and raise Brown by actually flying in the President of the United States to stump for a state election--during an international humanitarian crisis. Even if we couldn't have sent the money to Haiti, the millions of dollars on both sides that poured into this election from out of state interests pushing any national agenda is both wrong and sickening--even if I do happen to agree with said national agenda.

I was adamantly ashamed of how so many conservatives--many from Utah--poured money and biased advertisements into a largely hateful campaign around Proposition 8 and equal marriage rights in California a few years ago, so regardless of which candidate I supported today, I maintain my disgust if out of nothing more than principle. Those non-Californian conservatives had no business trying to guide policymakers on an issue that did not affect their jurisdiction. I realize that out-of-state influence on elections at even the local level is both legal and prevalent. However, I do not accept that it is appropriate, admirable, or fair.

Where does this leave me now, then, since I find the actions of both campaigns (not the politicians--the campaigns) to be detestable? It still boils right back down to who I would rather see represent my state and my interests for the next six years. My absentee ballot was not sent in time because at that point I had not decided who to vote for yet, and I felt more comfortable not voting than in just guessing. I am an independent, after all; since I don't align with a party, I actually do have to figure out which politician is either the better choice or just the lesser of two evils, and this time I was not 100% sure by the deadline (Side note: Yes, since my ballot was not submitted in time, you are reading the thoughts of a non-voter. Judge me all you'd like, but I've never thrown a vote away).

Here is the thing about Martha Coakley. She has thus far used the office of Attorney General as a platform to run for higher office. She was exploring the possibility of occupying Ted Kennedy's seat while he was still alive and serving. Her lackluster campaign proved that she was largely out-of-touch with the needs of many Massachusetts voters, and unlike many other politicians, she seemed hardly even aware of what her detractors thought. Even the most polarizing politicians hear out their opponents. Essentially, did she expect that she could ride the wave of popularity that the Democrats have enjoyed in Massachusetts for a long time, and get in by clutching to Kennedy's coattails? It seemed so. When it became clear that her non-campaign was hurting her, she went into attack mode and, rather than explain her positions beyond "I'm like everyone else and vote the way my party tells me to!", she allowed her supporters to create a nasty, negative ad campaign against Brown that was not even all that truthful. Ted Kennedy was a great Senator who worked tirelessly for his state and for the underpriviledged, and Coakley is not necessarily a worthy successor of his seat just because she showed up and offered herself as a public servant.

On the other side, while I do not agree with several of his positions (waterboarding? seriously???), I found Scott Brown to at least be in touch with his constituents. He took great care to be more than the token Republican and actually listen to the complaints of a good deal of Massachusetts residents. Maybe those residents see things differently than I do, but their votes count the same as mine and there are a lot of them.

I have not addressed the fate of health care. I want to make something clear, which might seem contrary to the spirit of my little rant here: I want a good universal health care option. To live in the country that we live in, while denying people the access to at least somewhat decent care, is shameful. I cannot accept the idea that we can't afford a public option covering every child through age 18 when we can go liberate other countries and install democracy abroad. That does not add up, even if you do support the war in Iraq. We have children here on the streets that cannot stay healthy or help themselves even if they could find a job, and lest I be accused of being a bleeding-heart dreamer, I see these children every day. I know what I'm talking about.

Here's my problem with just electing the last vote to pass this proposal: it's not a numbers game. If the plan, as it is now, is currently opposed by either 40% or 41% of US senators, then there is something wrong. It needs fixing. We cannot pass a mediocre, mixed bag of a plan just so we can say that we did something. We need long-term, financially-feasible health care reform that more Americans can agree on. This is not an impossible task. It will take time and compromise on both sides, but I think that our politicians are more than capable of implementing a system that is fair for all.

Regardless of what happens to this current health care proposal, it needs work. There are far too many Americans against it in its current form. Let's go back to the drawing board and create a bi-partisan, flexible plan that many of us could get behind.

And--speaking as a moderate--if I have to live with my state being equally represented by a moderate Democrat (John Kerry) and a moderate Republican (Scott Brown), well... I can think of far worse things.