Norvell Rose
Answering the real "wake-up call"
By Norvell Rose
In the turbulent wake of the Massachusetts special Senate election, pundits and politicians of different stripes generally agree — the Republican victory is a wake-up call for Democrats. What they don't agree on — and what's so fascinating to observe — is what that call means, and how to answer it.
Essentially, there are two schools of thought among Obamacrats who hear the alarm. One — given Massachusetts' traditionally liberal leanings, the defeat of Democrat Martha Coakley is a signal to slow down and back off. Slow down on the fast-tracked leftist agenda overall, and back off the relentless, no-holds-barred drive to enact so-called health care reform at the federal level. Or school two — because the voting public is getting off the radical-left train, clearly that train must be sped up. Full steam ahead. To slow down or stop the train would, to many in the angry liberal camp, be worse than barreling forward.
This latter course risks an absolute train wreck, not just for the undaunted Dems, but for the country.
How many times have we heard Obama, Reid, Pelosi and their courtiers in the media claim they want bi-partisanship? How many times have leading liberals spoken with such sanctimony about the need for the more civilized politics of compromise? And yet, when an election of such magnitude yields teeth-shattering results as in Massachusetts, what do many of these same bi-partisan compromisers want to do? They want to get tougher, get meaner, more fierce and more fanatic. Like a runaway train, they ignore the signals.
Obama and his acolytes misinterpreted the results of their sweep into power in the 2008 elections. What they thought — or at least what they have tried to convince us of — is that America gave them the progressive green light. That the vote for "change" meant radical, socialist/fascist, fundamental, structural change. They were wrong.
Now, they risk another, and I would argue, more ominous misinterpretation of an election outcome. To double down, to strike an even more aggressive and defiant pose, to blindly push their agenda with even greater zeal, would be more than throwing gas on the populist fire. It would be throwing dynamite into the arsenal of populist uprising.
I agree that Scott Brown's upset victory in Kennedy country is a wake-up call, and a loud one at that. What is yet to be seen is what side of the bed the Dems will get up on. The side of reasonable re-evaluation of their "mandate," or the side of delusional and destructive devotion to their lost cause.
One way or the other, you can rest assured the Obamacrats will answer the call. And one way or the other, We the People — now wide awake and alert to their schemes — will make sure there's no drifting back into their dream of a liberal utopia. For it's a dream that could surely turn into a national nightmare.
© Norvell Rose
January 20, 2010
In the turbulent wake of the Massachusetts special Senate election, pundits and politicians of different stripes generally agree — the Republican victory is a wake-up call for Democrats. What they don't agree on — and what's so fascinating to observe — is what that call means, and how to answer it.
Essentially, there are two schools of thought among Obamacrats who hear the alarm. One — given Massachusetts' traditionally liberal leanings, the defeat of Democrat Martha Coakley is a signal to slow down and back off. Slow down on the fast-tracked leftist agenda overall, and back off the relentless, no-holds-barred drive to enact so-called health care reform at the federal level. Or school two — because the voting public is getting off the radical-left train, clearly that train must be sped up. Full steam ahead. To slow down or stop the train would, to many in the angry liberal camp, be worse than barreling forward.
This latter course risks an absolute train wreck, not just for the undaunted Dems, but for the country.
How many times have we heard Obama, Reid, Pelosi and their courtiers in the media claim they want bi-partisanship? How many times have leading liberals spoken with such sanctimony about the need for the more civilized politics of compromise? And yet, when an election of such magnitude yields teeth-shattering results as in Massachusetts, what do many of these same bi-partisan compromisers want to do? They want to get tougher, get meaner, more fierce and more fanatic. Like a runaway train, they ignore the signals.
Obama and his acolytes misinterpreted the results of their sweep into power in the 2008 elections. What they thought — or at least what they have tried to convince us of — is that America gave them the progressive green light. That the vote for "change" meant radical, socialist/fascist, fundamental, structural change. They were wrong.
Now, they risk another, and I would argue, more ominous misinterpretation of an election outcome. To double down, to strike an even more aggressive and defiant pose, to blindly push their agenda with even greater zeal, would be more than throwing gas on the populist fire. It would be throwing dynamite into the arsenal of populist uprising.
I agree that Scott Brown's upset victory in Kennedy country is a wake-up call, and a loud one at that. What is yet to be seen is what side of the bed the Dems will get up on. The side of reasonable re-evaluation of their "mandate," or the side of delusional and destructive devotion to their lost cause.
One way or the other, you can rest assured the Obamacrats will answer the call. And one way or the other, We the People — now wide awake and alert to their schemes — will make sure there's no drifting back into their dream of a liberal utopia. For it's a dream that could surely turn into a national nightmare.
© Norvell Rose
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
