All the pundits are blasting Obama for his comments this week declaring similarities between the momentum that brought him the Presidency and the momentum that brought Scott Brown to the Senate.
Obama said: “Here’s my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts but the mood around the country: The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office, people are angry and they are frustrated. Not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years but what’s happened over the last eight years.”
Well, for once, I agree with the President. He may not know it, but for now he’s on to something. The similarities are significant, but not for the reasons Obama would have you believe. Obama is implicitly declaring that the “thing” that swept them into office was a massive mandate to centralize power at the federal level, or in Brown’s case public dissatisfaction with the rate at with Obama was able to centralize power. This could not be further from the truth. In fact, the “thing” that swept both into office was absolute disgust with Washington DC.
The centralization of power is the problem.
Both elections prove it. Obama won the election because he was “not Bush”. Brown won the election because he was “not Obama”. Both won the election because they were not “Washington DC”. Well, now they are both Washington DC, so who will the people send next to solve the problems sure to be endorsed by these champions. In other words, the game continues until “we the people” tell Washington to take a hike, we can solve our problems locally.
This battle is not about Republicans versus Democrats. It’s not even about left ideology versus right ideology. The battle is much more serious. It is about “we the people” versus an out of control federal government. Or more to the point, decentralized power versus centralized power.