The buzz seems to be anti-incumbency. Surely there is disgust with the paralysis in Congress, and especially the Senate, and that translates into a lot of anti-incumbent feeling. But I believe it's more specific. It's wanting to get rid of the incumbents who put special interests or political expediency above principles or who paralyze senate action.
Look at the two biggest defeats of solid senate incumbents: Arlen Specter and Blanche Lincoln.
Specter, with a long reputation of doing what was politically expedient, while talking about being principled, switched parties when it became obvious that he couldn't win re-election as a Republican. So the Democrats didn't want him either -- who really trusts a turncoat, even if he turns toward you? Sure, Specter got tepid official support from Democratic leaders. I assume that they had promised to support him in return for his switching parties, so it was obligatory. I equally well assume that they are delighted to have Joe Sestak instead.
And then there's Blanche Lincoln -- one of the last Democratic holdouts on health care reform for whom they had to drop the public option plan. Lincoln has long been considered not so much a conservative Dem as a corporatist because of her loyalty to the bank and business interests. Her attempt to balance that by an election year lurch to the populist front with an amendment to regulate derivative funds didn't fool anyone. Somehow, the legislation never got brought up for a vote, and then it was quietly dropped the day after the election. Sounds like a stunt to me.
Uber-blogger Jane Hamsher agrees. Writing about Lincoln's quasi-defeat, she said this about the mood of the electorate:
The message being sent by the public could not be clearer. It's not so much an anti-incumbent sentiment as it is anti-Senate. People are tired of their arrogance, their sense of personal privilege, the way they completely dismiss the House and demand they swallow whatever Joe Lieberman wants. Over and over again, the Senate plays a game of "rotating villains" then manipulates their rules so that their big business contributors always win. People aren't stupid. They understand what's happening.This is what the voters are saying NO to. It explains why the Republicans are choosing more conservative candidates and the Democrats more liberal ones. They want to send people to Congress who will stand up for their interests and not play these political games that keep the status quo.
Blogger Cenk Uygur also argues that progressives won big: that is, the more progressive candidate won in almost every race (an argument I made here two days ago). Uygur lists Sestak over Specter, Critz over Burns for Murtha's old seat, Halter forcing Lincoln to a run-off which he is predicted to win, and -- intriguingly he includes Rand Paul, who he says is more likely to agree with progressives on some issues than the establishment conservative candidate.
At least Paul won't be a rubber stamp for Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who had made a big show of support for Paul's opponent, the establishment candidate.
I would add one more progressive win: the Democratic winner in the KY senate race to face Paul is the more liberal Attorney General, Jack Conway, who eked out a narrow margin over the Lt. Governor.
So there you have it. Anti-incumbent, but more specifically, incumbents who serve special interests over peoples' interest and who put politics over principle. Voters want to send people to Washington who will vote for the interests of those who elected them, not the special interests who give them huge sums of money to sway their votes.
I'm 100% for that.
Ralph
No comments:
Post a Comment