Scott Brown’s recent Republican victory in the Massachusetts Senate race has been headlining news all over the nation the past two days. Some are calling it a “repudiation of the Democrats” and “the end of the Age of Obama.” The Tea Party Movement considers it a big-win for them (though not all of them). Even some libertarians are loving the news. With all due respect to these folks, this is all pure nonsense.
Scott Brown may not be like all the other Democrats, but he’s just as socialist. So what if he doesn’t like ObamaCare? He continues to support MittCare in Massachusetts. He voted for it. According to Wes at THL, Mr. Brown simply thinks that the government could “do better” than ObamaCare, which should be read as “we need more MittCare – on a national level!” From a speech Brown gave today:
"I voted for health care here…. we’re past campaign mode and I think it’s important for everyone to get some form of health care. So to offer a basic plan for everyone I think is important… there are some very good things in the national health care plan that is being proposed"
Obama may not have his 60 votes in the Senate anymore, but it doesn’t really matter in the long run. More than likely, Brown will just assist getting a bill just as bad as ObamaCare, if not worse, passed.
Scott Brown clearly believes in continuing to use the Federal Government’s military might to invade, occupy and force sanctions upon other nations. OnTheIssues.org notes that he wants 30,000 more invaders to go to the Middle East, and that they need to stay until they “finish the job.”
Oh yeah, and he also believes that torture is ok.
Eric Fehrnstrom, Brown’s top strategist, told National Review, “but from our own internal polling, the more potent issue here in Massachusetts was terrorism and the treatment of enemy combatants.” Whether or not Fehrnstrom’s point is true (some have told me, and I believe them, that health care was the main issue), Brown is committed to “enhanced interrogation” as good and right – and so are plenty of other Massachusetts voters, apparently.
That the Tea Party Movement bought into this guy is ridiculous. It’s either a sign of weakness on their part or infiltration from the exact people they have been trying to replace – let’s hope it’s the former, and that the lesson is quickly learned. Tea Partiers know something is wrong, but they sometimes just don’t see the problem in context. I hope those of us who are consistent libertarians can take the opportunity to show them that the State is not the answer – it has never been the answer.
There is only one potentially decent thing to come out of this event: it sends some minor shockwaves through the establishment. But this is only a minor setback to the shadowy puppet masters. We should remember that the two-party system is just a one party system with twin faces. Fundamentally, they support the same policies and do the same things while duping the public into thinking that replacing the blokes every few years is going to make the difference. As historian Caroll Quigley notes in Tragedy and Hope, it most certainly won’t:
The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy.… Either party in office becomes in time corrupt, tired, unenterprising, and vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.
Let Scott Brown’s victory be a lesson to us all: We cannot count on the establishment to support freedom.
UPDATE: And for some more funky Tea Party news, check this blurb from Lew Rockwell.
UPDATE: The moment of truth…