Exactly one year after the inauguration of President Barack Obama, the Massachusetts Senate seat held for 47 years by Ted Kennedy in the most liberal and bluest of the states was won by a (gasp!) conservative Republican, Scott Brown.

This shocking event was widely blamed on several factors: (1) Martha Coakley was a poor candidate that (arrogantly) took her victory in the general election for granted; (2) The people of Massachusetts already had universal forced health insurance, and didn’t want their taxes increased to provide it to the whole country; and (3) the independents turned against the Democrats because they had gone too far to the left.

As usual, this analysis contains a mixture of truth, falsehood, and omission.  (1) Yes, Martha Coakley was a poor candidate who appeared arrogant and aloof until it was too late.  (2) Yes, Massachusetts already has something similar to the Senate “reform” bill, but the people up there I talked to don’t like it!  They don’t like being forced to buy inadequate insurance at exorbitant and continually-increasing prices, and they certainly don’t like the fines if they fail to buy what they don’t want.  Perhaps they saw the “Obama-care” bill as an impediment to them getting something better for themselves.  And maybe they wouldn’t wish such a system on the rest of the country; and (3) Yes, the independents turned against the Democrats, but NOT because they had gone too far to the left.  They turned against them because they had gone too far to the RIGHT, that is: toward the middle-of-the-road milk-toast center, and they had gone back on their promise of real change.  What every single pundit omitted from their analysis of Brown’s win was a fourth (and perhaps critical) reason: (4) The huge majority that gave Obama his landslide victory in Massachusetts were disappointed, dispirited, and frustrated that the change they voted for didn’t happen.  In particular, they were incensed because they had voted against the corporate wars of aggression in 2004, in 2006, and in 2008, and were ignored.  (There was actually a fifth possible reason, also universally ignored.  Martha Coakley actually WON every county in which the votes were counted by hand.  Brown’s win came from counties using ES&S and Diebold electronic voting machines.)

But why, even considering all these reasons, would liberals in Massachusetts vote for a “conservative?”  This is the really important point to be taken from the Scott Brown event.  The American people are beginning to understand that they have been artificially divided into liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican, left and right … and that these labels have very little meaning.  The old far left and the new far right are together in their rejection of centrist status-quo, corporate-dominated politics.  The real divide is between the populists, who want to serve the people, and the professional politicians, who serve only themselves and big money.  Scott Brown painted himself as a populist.  He is conservative on fiscal issues, and so are most Americans.  He is liberal on social issues, and so are most Americans.  He did not trumpet his Republicanism, but his independence.  In his acceptance speech, he never uttered the word “Republican” – not once.  But he repeatedly referred to himself and his supporters as “independent.”  Now, chances are that he won’t turn out as independent or as populist as he painted himself.  More likely he’ll vote pretty much the way the Republican leadership tells him to vote.  (But if he does, he’ll wind up a one-term senator.  Most of the citizens of Massachusetts who voted for him did NOT vote for a conservative Republican, but for a populist independent.)

It has now become painfully obvious to most Americans that BOTH major political parties at the national level are currently owned lock, stock, and barrel by the same big money interests.  (It has been obvious to some of us for a long time, which is why we supported John Anderson, Ross Perot, and Ralph Nader, and why I ran for President as an independent in 2000.)  We must now face the fact that it is impossible for a true populist to get the support of the leadership of either party or of the monopoly corporate media.  But Barack Obama enjoyed the support of both of these, and therefore they must have KNOWN that he wasn’t really the populist he pretended to be.  The same goes for Scott Brown.  Those who really ARE populists (like Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul) are marginalized by their party and ridiculed by the media.

The election of Scott Brown does not mean the demise of the Democratic Party, nor the resurgence of the Republican Party.  It means that the people are sick and tired of government serving Wall Street and not Main Street.  They want populists … and party be damned.

Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret.
National Commander, “The Patriots”
1494 Patriot Dr, Melbourne, FL 32940
Home:  (321) 752-5955
Cell:      (321) 258-0582
Email:  bob@thepatriots.us
Web site:  www.thepatriots.us