When the news of Republican Scott Brown’s election to the Senate on Jan. 19 reached me, my first reaction was, “How?” Massachusetts, characteristically left-leaning, has embodied much of the liberal agenda like abortions and gay marriage and has elected a democratic senator for the past 30 years. How did this happen?
Scott Brown made it very clear that he would be against any attempt to pass the Obama health care legislation that would provide universal care through taxes. Brown stands for privatized health insurance, which lowers taxes, but through which millions are left uninsured. By lowering taxes, people cannot access affordable healthcare and are subject to greater health risks. Testing for diseases, annual physicals and surgery (without it costing thousands of dollars) are closed to the uninsured. So as a state we had to choose: Should we lower taxes or provide health insurance to the uninsured?
My moral meter began to buzz. My family, like many others, is concerned with the state of our economy. We are doing our best to reduce spending but still recognize the greater need for universal care. Heath care is an inalienable right, the right to life. Brown believes that meeting the initial need to lower costs and taxes is more important than insuring Massachusetts citizens.
More than half our state was only thinking about themselves: their taxes, their spending and their coverage. What about the other 45.7 million in the country who aren’t insured? Should we only be concerned with our own wellbeing?
Scott Brown won also because liberals were not too fond of the opposing candidate. Martha Coakley is a wax figure. Her inability to inspire was extremely disappointing. People want to vote for candidates that are motivating, rousing, engaging, personable and persuasive. Coakley is none of these things. Her policies were liberal, but her lack of character drove away many of Massachusetts’ moderate liberals. She farkakte’d up. (If you don’t know what that means, Google “Yiddish words for f*”)
Due to Brown’s win, we will expect the following. One: Since Brown is the forty-first Republican in the Senate, any or all health care reform may be rejected. Two: Balding, old men in the Senate are one step closer to making unconstitutional decisions about my body. (Brown does not believe in abortion.) And three: More spending on war. There are millions of people in this country homeless, uninsured and unable to feed their families, but Brown wants more money to be spent on the military than on health insurance.
I am disappointed with Scott Brown’s policies, I am disappointed with his win and I am disappointed with the way Martha Coakley ran her campaign. Thankfully, we do not have to endure Brown for the full term, and we do have a chance to rectify our state. But the question is, could our state become increasingly red?
To many, Brown’s win represents the weakening of the Democratic agenda. I hope that when voters find themselves in the voting booth, they will think of the time-honored proverb, “Voting is just like driving. If you want to go backward, choose ‘R’, if you want to go forward choose ‘D.’”
