THE MEANING OF MASSACHUSETTS

Yesterday, Scott Brown, a little known Massachusetts State Senator, pulled off one of the biggest upsets in modern political history by coming back from 30 points down to beat Martha Coakley, the Massachusetts Attorney General, to take Ted Kennedy's old Senate seat. There has been a lot of discussion in the blogosphere (and I am sure on TV, which I do not watch) about the meaning of that decision. I think both parties will be talking about Scott Brown for months and years to come.

For the Republicans, the lesson is clear. Run hard against the President and put up likable, moderate candidates in "blue" states to try and claim the center and win over independents, who are a growing political force and who ultimately decide elections. They did not send in Sarah Palin, and they did not require a purity test for Brown, and it paid off... big, or at least for 6 years in that seat.

For the Democrats, the lesson is even more clear. President Obama has failed on almost every front in his first year. While he was one of the greatest campaigners in modern political times, he has presented no coherent message or vision to the American people. If Reagan was the "Great Communicator," Obama has been Charlie Chaplin, a star of silent films as you may recall. He has ignited the fury of Republicans and independents who believe that he is trying to insinuate government into every sphere of American life, that he is fiscally irresponsible, and that he is simply out of touch with the problems and struggles that the average American faces. I used to think that many of these excuses were a cover for racism, but I think that bigots make up a minority of those who oppose the President.

At the same time, President Obama has alienated previously strident supporters like me who knocked on doors, wrote checks, pestered family members and friends to do both these things, and who made calls to swing voters. I cannot recall when I last opened an email from the Democratic Committee or President Obama's "Organizing for America." Rather, I simply delete them because I feel as though the President has not been clear with the American people about where we are going, what we will need to sacrifice to get there, and what he is thinking. In short, on issues from Afghanistan, to the economy, to bank bailouts, and to health care, he has not led!

That said, I ultimately believe that Scott Brown's victory has the potential to be a boon, long term, for the Democrats if they learn from that defeat, get up, and move forward. Someone once said winning elections is the easy part. It is governing that is hard.

If I were the Democrats (i.e. President Obama), I would get out there and discuss what my priorities for the nation are, what it will take to get these things done, and why we need to get them done. I would engage the Republicans in debate while not expecting any of them to even feign cooperation. I would make it clear to the America people that one party has ideas and solutions to help them (taxing the Wall St. firms and the auto industry, creating jobs for the jobless, and providing health care to the uninsured, whose ranks will swell as long as unemployment rises). If the American people are included in this dialogue, they will realize who is truly for them and who is merely against the party in power, and the center will be re-claimed (see campaign 2008).

Health care reform may be dead, at least temporarily, but I do believe that a more rational and transparent approach to its incremental reform is possible. On this and a host of other issues, he who claims the microphone (not by trying to be all things to all people or by compromising one's principles so much that every political faction feels disgusted) and who fashions a narrative that resonates with the average American will ultimately win the center and the support of the American people for far longer than a 24 hour news cycle or a 6 year Senate term...