Weeks like this are hog heaven for political junkies, and a downright paradise for the punditocrary, who’ll get at least two weeks’ paychecks for spinning out the endless whys and hows of the decline and fall we witnessed tonight. No reason we can’t play at What It All Means.

Me, … I’m not sure. And we’ve doubtless all drawn different lessons. My guess is that they all have some value as Greens switch into election gear, and I’m interested in what conclusions you’ve drawn.

I don’t yet have a cogent argument to advance, so consider these ramblings and an invitation to a response.

What’s the Matter With Kans–err, Massachusetts?

The election was a mandate…

…for an unabashed social and fiscal conservative to stand up to Obama and his liberal vision. You’ll probably see some of that on RMG … but no. You won’t see Brown pull those kinds of numbers in two years. The Commonwealth hasn’t suddenly swung wildly to the right. The campaign wasn’t about god, gays, guns, and abortion, none of which are real high up in the state or national consciousness at the moment.

The outcome was the result of endless bungling by the Coakley campaign and the candidate’s apparent tone-deaf political ear . The campaign obviously screwed up and big early on by sitting on their hands, and that kind of arrogance seemed to characterize Coakley personally coming down the stretch as well. But I don’t think bungling accounted for the 5-point spread at the end.

The outcome was the result of progressives’ antipathy towards the “centrist” Obama and mainstream indies’ antipathy towards the “socialist” Obama . Could be. I know plenty of left-of-center folks weren’t getting it up for what appeared to be, by and large, someone who’d promote Obama’s decidedly centrist (even right-leaning) policies. That’s Obama’s problem, of course, not ours, and how he chooses to redefine himself as a result will be interesting but little more. I do know that the American President, whoever s/he is, is either hero or villain, and that most folks re-create him in whatever image suits their own politics. And most forget that all politics in a democracy is about compromise, not matter how much we cherish our own assumptions about what needs to be done, and now.

The outcome was the result of Democratic defection–not sitting it out, but actually voting for Brown. To me, that’s a stunner. According to Rasmussen, 22% of Democrats–not indies, but registered Dems–voted Brown. Why? Well, the likely reason, and that given by lotsa folks who claimed that were voting GOP for the first time ever,  is that…

…The outcome was largely predicated on attitudes towards “health care reform “legislation currently being paraded through Congress. It’s hard to downplay this, as so many voters did identify it as their number one concern. But this where things get iffy–how many rejected it because it didn’t go far enough, and how many because any “government interference” at all goes “too far?”  What role did current dis/satisfaction with the Massachusetts play?

The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly

Even without resolving those questions, there’s good, bad, and ugly sides to all of this for Greens. The very good: unlike Obama, we don’t have to figure out whether to tack left or right–to appeal to disgruntled progressives or to uncertain mainstreamers. We are what we are, we don’t triangulate, and sometimes that’s a relief (but see below on the need to adequately communicate the same). More good: the obvious–we’ve seen firsthand our developing, if vague, sense of widespread dissatisfaction with the Democrats here in MA suddenly crystallized.  We’ve seen that it exists; and seen that it can be capitalized upon. Even if you’re unhappy with the outcome of the election–and I sure as hell am–that’s a pretty sweet silver lining and a spur to interest in our campaigns.

The bad? I’ll have to look at polls in re why Dems and indies went for Brown, but we do need to keep in mind that to some degree what the Brown win represents is not a rejection of the healthcare bill, but a rejection of ANY “government run” universal health program. Meaning that a hell of a lot of people don’t agree that the bill doesn’t go far enough–they’d just as soon it goes away, never to be talked of again. Which leads to the ugly: there  are, at least, some Democrats who do support single-payer–so, every time a Brown slinks into the Capitol, that dream becomes that much further deferred (the enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend). I do hope folks agree that while the Democrat establishment is not our friend, what the GOP is after places them in a different class altogether. Not only does every additional Republican ensure a widening of the abyss between the people and single-payer–the same is true of a slew of other issues, including environmental legislation (as The NYT reports this morning , “An already tough climb to pass comprehensive climate and energy legislation in the Senate just got a bit tougher with Republican Scott Brown’s upset victory yesterday in Massachusetts.”)

The GOP are firmly committed to obstructing ANY mildly progressive legislation of any kid, and MA voters just made their jobs a hell of a lot easier. It’s a pleasant populist fantasy, but we will not be making common cause with teabaggers. That said, the rabid teabagging element is a minority, and we owe it to the right’s rank-and-file to give them a hearing (that we may receive one in return. Once we get over the culture-war issues, man, are our interests similar!)

As for the independents and defecting Democrats, it pays, I think to keep in mind quite justifiable concerns about the relationship between “health care reform” and taxes. AND to listen, listen, listen to the concerns of the electorate. Robert Scheer, writing in Truthdig, advises that

It is the economy, stupid, and the sooner Obama grasps that, the better for his and the nation’s prospects. A new Wall Street Journal/NBC poll finds that “Americans ranked job creation and economic growth as their clear top priority for the federal government, well above national security and deficit reduction. Health care, Mr. Obama’s top domestic priority in 2009, now ranks fourth, closely trailing the deficit and government spending.”

And HuffPo editor Thomas Edsall concludes in a TNR story that

In practice, the decline of Democratic fortunes coincides with the growing perception that Obama’s three primary legislative initiatives–health care reform, cap-and-trade, and increased regulation of the financial sector–have failed to improve the daily lives of most voters, voters who are impacted by the worst economy in 70 years. At a time when many voters are frightened by unprecedented deficits, the threat of escalating health care costs and the likelihood of tax increases to pay for all this–Obama is being perceived as governing like a “tax and spend liberal.”

and that

… now a Democratic Party that seemed poised for electoral greatness has reverted back to the debilitating political condition that ailed it during the 1970s and 1980s. It is increasingly perceived as too liberal. It must convince the white working class that it will protect its interests-not just those of the very rich and very poor. Electoral success blinded the party to these nagging problems. Festering old perceptions have come back with a fury. That’s why Scott Brown and his pickup truck managed to drive such a large hole through the very center of the president’s agenda.

Lessons Learned

I agree with both these assessments–with the focus on “perceived.” I don’t give a damn what the Democrats do, but Green campaigns, parties, and members have to make the connection between progressivism and populism. Once upon a  time, you know, they were practically synonymous–and candidates like Debs were giants.

And we can do that. On two fronts.

Policy-wise: by demonstrating that REAL “health care reform”–single-payer–isn’t just the right thing to do–it’s the most economical. That green jobs aren’t just good for the environment–they’re essential to re-creating a  robust job market. That gradually re-localizing our economies–in demonstrably implementable ways–aren’t just solutions to grand-scale, distant problems like peak oil, but can end the shuttering of downtown storefronts in towns like mine.  We greens don’t have a problem with our policies (so long as we can articulate the precise programs we wish to implement) being “too liberal,” but rather, with communications. Show the people we understand THEIR concerns, demonstrate (as unwonkishly as possible) that our concerns are those of the working class (jobs, taxes, and jobs)–because they genuinely are. Again: show that we “can improve the daily lives of workers.” Yes–it’s that simple.

I honestly believe we can win that war on the policy front. Secondly: image-wise. Don’t groan–it matters. On this count, we should also take a hint from some of Ms. Coakley’s blunders. The hullabaloo over her comment in regard to Curt Schilling being a “Yankee fan” may strike us as exactly the kind of  trivia that detracts from real issues–but it was no small potatoes, and it spoke volumes about her detachment. As did her jaw-dropping dumb retort about not standing outside Fenway in the cold shaking hands. Never mind that Scott Brown was doing exactly that and that she should have been too–it came off as yet another diss of Red Sox Nation.

Last night, a few minutes after Coakley conceded, Rob over at Red Mass Group unveiled that site’s new logo and tagline. Have a look. I’d substitute “people inclined to vote against their best interests,” but you know what they’re onto–” ‘ol Scott and his truck, why, he’s just a regular fella like you ‘n me.”  Well: so are we.

But as became apparent to me when I joined the Party and announced that act to friends and co-workers, that wasn’t the general consensus. I found that folks weren’t really put off by Green politics, mostly because they’d never heard of ’em–they were put off by what they thought of  as Green lifestyles, lofty idealism, and disdain. I think many felt the same way about Ms Coakley.

So we need to make it clear that we, too, are a “big-tent” party. That we aren’t, contra our image, simply sixties retreads leading wildly countercultural lives (I can tell you that that’s precisely our image among some large chunks of Boston, anyway). God knows there’s nothing wrong with veganism and hackseysack and the Dalai Lama and acoustic guitars and pacifism–but let’s ensure that we transcend that image and make it clear that we more than welcome Greens who like to hunt, fish, and bowl, who get sweaty at Dropkick Murphy shows on Saturday night and repent the same at mainstream religious services the next morning, who have strong opinions about moving Jacoby Ellsbury to left field, and live and die each week with the Patriots. Who drink American beer and plenty of it and who can tell you where to find the best wings–and, yes, seitan too–in town. We’ve been caricatures in too many venues for too long. I don’t want to defined by the likes of Howie fucking Carr.

(And–as an aside–I remember my mom–in tears–putting out our flag on our porch the days both MLK and RFK were killed. It’s one of my treasured possessions, and I’ve carried that same flag at numerous antiwar demonstrations. I get some odd looks, since it’s usually the pro-war counter demonstrators that carry them. But that’s my point–I want country back, and I want my flag back. We oughta be displaying it and reclaiming it–it’s glaring in its absence and folks accustomed to seeing it on every grandstand notice).  

I don’t consider any of this to mean abandoning our principles or playing lowest-common-denominator politics. Quite the opposite. It’s more a question of re-branding ourselves, of ensuring that, unlike the Democrats, we aren’t seen as distant from the politics that matter to people, and unlike Ms Coakley, we aren’t perceived as aloof from their day-to-day interests and routines. Green isn’t (just) high-minded aspirational thinking–it’s often plain damn common-sense. Green isn’t counter-culture–it can and should be the every-day politics across ALL American subcultures.

Again, this is pretty much off-the-cuff, initial reactions that deserve more study and not necessarily positions I’d go to the wall on. I’m more interested in your thoughts.

One last note. Barney Frank, a pragmatist if I’ve ever met one, has already advised scrapping both the health care bills. So one the administration’s pet projects IS likely to be a “dream deferred,” in Langston Hughes’ words. But greens might think about Hughes’ entire poem:

What happens to a dream deferred?

Or does it explode?

Got a match?

Weeks like this are hog heaven for political junkies, and a downright paradise for the Punditry, who’ll get at least two weeks’ paychecks for spinning out the endless whys and hows of the decline and fall we witnessed tonight. No reason we can’t play. Though I think, as Mike Heichmann points out in a comment appended to the post below, we’re probably going to be more interested in figuring out What It All Means. For us.

Me, I’m not sure. And…

we’ve doubtless all drawn different lessons. My guess is that they all have some value as Greens switch into election gear, and I’m interested in what conclusions you’ve drawn.

I don’t have a cogent argument to advance, so consider these ramblings and an invitation to a response:

The election was a mandate for an unabashed social and fiscal conservative to stand up to Obama and his liberal vision. You’ll probably see some of that on RMG … but no. You won’t see Brown pull those kinds of numbers in two years. The Commonwealth hasn’t suddenly swung wildly to the right.

The outcome was the result of endless bungling by the Coakley campaign and the candidate’s apparent tone-deaf political ear. The campaign obviously screwed up and big early on sitting on their hands, and that kind of arrogance seemed to characterize Coakley personally coming down the stretch as well. But I don’t think bungling accounted for the 6-7 point spread at the end.

The outcome was the result of progressives’ antipathy towards the centrist Obama and mainstream indies’ antipathy towards the socialist Obama. Could be. That’s Obama’s problem, of course, not ours, and how he chooses to redefine himself as a result will be interesting but little more.

The outcome was the result of Democratic defection. To me, that’s a stunner. According to Rasmussen, 22% of Democrats–not indies, but registered Dems–voted Brown. Why? Well, the likely reason is that…

The outcome was largely predicated on attitudes towards “health care reform”legislation currently being paraded through Congress. It’s hard to downplay this, as so many voters did identify it as their number one concern. But this where things get iffy–how many rejected it because it didn’t go far enough, and how many because any “government interference” at all goes “too far?”

Even without resolving the questions, there’s good, bad, and ugly sides to all of this for Greens. The very good: unlike Obama, we don’t have to figure out whether to tack left or right–to appeal to disgruntled progressives or to uncertain mainstreamers. We are what we are, we don’t triangulate, and sometimes that’s a relief. More good: the obvious–we’ve seen firsthand our sense of dissatisfaction with the Democrats here in MA being born out on the practical level. Seen that it exists; and seen that it can be exploited. Even if you’re unhappy with the outcome of the election–and I am–that’s a pretty sweet silver lining and a spur to interest in our campaigns.

The bad? I’ll have to look at polls in re why Dems and indies went for Brown, but we do need to keep in mind that what Brown represents is not a rejection of the healthcare bill, but a rejection of ANY “government run” universal health program. Meaning that a hell of a lot of people don’t agree that the bill doesn’t go far enough–they’d just as soon it goes away, never to be talked of again. There  are, at least, some Democrats who do support single-payer–so, as for the ugly, every time a Brown slinks into the Capitol that dream becomes that much harder (the enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend). I do hope folks agree that while the Democrat establishment is not our friend, what the GOP is after places them in a different class altogether. It’s a pleasant populist fantasy, but we will not be making common cause with teabaggers.

Anyway, I’m not ready to leap to conclusions, but I’m interested in what the rest of ya make of tonight, and what a SWOT analysis of the situation might look like. Here are some stats to play with if you like.