A Warning for the Dems and a Lesson for the GOP

Scott Brown’s win cannot help but create panic among the Democrats. By focusing on an unpopular health care bill and high unemployment, Brown provided a message that resonated with both moderate and socially conservative Republican voters.

Scott Brown’s decisive win in the Massachusetts U.S. Senate race cannot help but create panic among the Democratic members of Congress, particularly those that represent moderate, swing districts.  The outcome of today’s special election will send shock waves, creating a sense that no one is safe in the current climate, which is fostered by an unpopular health care bill, high unemployment and an unpopular administration.

Clearly, with the loss of the 60th Democratic vote in the U.S. Senate, the result of this election will have implications for the passage of health care reform.  There have been rumblings that the Democratic led Senate will not seat the newly elected member until a health care bill has passed both bodies.  However, that does not appear to have wide acceptance within the Democratic Conference, as U.S. Senator Jim Webb, from Virginia, has just released a statement emphasizing that no further votes should be taken on health care until Senator-elect Brown is seated.  Senator Webb is on the right track, as Americans are sick and tired of the slick gamesmanship that Congress has been engaged in.  They want their representatives to be open and honest and all inclusive.

Assuming that Senator-elect Brown is seated in a timely manner, the Democrats have three options if they want to pass health care reform:

1. The Democratic leadership can exert pressure on their House members to accept the Senate version of the bill.  (If the House passes the Senate bill as is, the bill does not have to go back to the Senate for another vote.)   The challenge with this option is that the Senate version of the bill differs significantly from the House version, as it does not provide for taxpayer funded abortions; it provides for full Medicaid funding for Nebraska (but no other state); and it taxes “Cadillac Health Plans”, which includes the labor unions’ health plans.  With the outcome of today’s Senate election, I believe that the House members will become risk averse and will be reluctant to vote for the Senate bill.
2. Congress can pass a health care bill, through reconciliation and call it a victory.  The problem they have with this approach is that they would only get a small part of what they want and the bill would sunset several years from now.
3. The Democratic Senate leadership can try to persuade Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, from Maine, or two other moderate Republicans to “join their team” and support their health care reform.

Keeping in mind that the House’s version of the bill passed by only four votes and that the House members are up for reelection this year, there may no longer be enough votes in the House to move forward with health care reform.

But, I don’t believe that, from a policy perspective, the outcome of this special election was due only to the deep opposition to the health care bills.  I believe that the unemployment rate in Massachusetts, among blue collar workers, was also a significant factor in the outcome of this election.

In an article in today’s Boston Globe, reporter Robert Gavin wrote that “the recession has been more like a depression for blue-collar workers”.  He cited that, “in Massachusetts, there are 65 unemployed construction and 24 jobless manufacturing workers for each available position, according to a new report by Northeastern University’s Center for Labor Market Studies.”  That compares to just two job seekers for every job in professional occupations.  He further reports that for blue-collar workers, matters are expected to worsen, remaining well below prerecession levels for years to come, according to the New England Economic Partnership.

These out of work individuals have watched the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress take the United States trillions of dollars deeper into debt, supposedly to stimulate the economy.  But they have seen no personal results, as they still do not have a job with almost no hope of securing one.  And that word – hope- is an important one.  I believe that the reason these voters who supported President Obama in 2008 are now turning away from him, is because he ran his campaign promising “the hope of a better future”, but these Americans have lost all hope of a better future, as they do not have the one thing that they need most – a job!  They are not only losing hope, they are also losing their dignity, which results in anger played out in the ballot box.  These votes are anti-establishment votes.

As for how this election will impact the Republican Party – Senator-elect Scott Brown, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie all proved that when Republican candidates focus on economic issues, they win. Republican coalitions must be built on economic issues, as low taxes, job creation, smaller and more efficient government, and a healthy economy are what Americans care most about, in the current economic climate.  That message is attractive to both the moderate and socially conservative arms of the Republican Party.