With all the admitted "tectonic shift" and "stunning upset" aspects of the Massachusetts Senate election outcome, I have this morning a sense of "so what?"
More than anyone, I hope to get out of the present crisis without conflict. Yet for all of the popular uprising of the Tea Parties and the widespread political rejection of Obama socialism and Federal power, we must ask, "what has changed?"
It is said that given the evident political price, Obama, like Clinton before him, will tack to the center.
Matthew Continetti, writing in the Weekly Standard says this of THAT presumption:
Obama does not want to be Clinton. He wants to be FDR. He wants to undo the "government doesn't work" mentality that has more or less dominated American politics since Reagan's election in 1980. He wants to build "a new foundation" for the United States that is more like the social democracies you find in Western Europe. He has said that he would rather be a one-term president of consequence than a two-term president who does little. And, unlike Clinton, he experiences constant pressure from a rabid left-wing on the Internet and cable news that brooks no compromise with the forces of "nihilism." What makes us think he'll move to the center, again?
This tracks with what David Axelrod and other White House aides were quoted as saying last night. Once again they are going to double down, even if the result (in conventional thinking and according to the old rules) is abject failure.
So, there is that. The Obama "Hope and Change" Long March proceeds, even if the folks following behind are disappearing into the weeds. Yet Obama will be president for three more years. That is a loooong time. Much more damage can be done by these collectivist mokes in the mean time.
Secondly, we must ask ourselves if the "rejuvenated" Republicans have spent enough time wandering in the wilderness of non-power to have learned their lesson. As Pat Buchanan has observed the two parties have been "two wings of the same bird of prey." Will the Tea Parties be gulled by mere words and posturing by the anti-republican "Republicans" who still run the party? Victories like Brown's are intoxicating. But whose "victories" are they, really?
We've been here before in 1994. What did gun owners get besides empty promises then? Does Brown's victory do anything to reign in the forward inertia of bureaucratic tyranny evident in the Austin gunshow outrage?
And over all of the many tiny tyrannies current and future that the Obamanoids are wreaking and will wreak, looms the spectre of economic collapse and social catastrophe.
Brown won. Big deal.
The dead elephant party beat the donkey party. So what? What has changed for the future of the Founders' Republic?
Ignore the hype and keep preparing.