Martha Coakley and the Perils of a One-Party State

The Eccentric Observer

Old Dominion Tory

...

 Martha Coakley, center, performs a skit in the aptly named "Banned in Boston" Improv, 2008

As Martha Coakley staggered into the last weekend of what was supposed to be a pro forma campaign for the U.S. Senate, reports abounded that Democratic “strategists” have started to offer a common explanation for what could be a stunning victory by Scott Brown. As occurred in the aftermath of Virginia gubernatorial election last November—when the Democratic candidate was utterly drubbed—it is meant to squelch speculation that somehow, some way, Americans aren’t too keen on what the Democrats have been doing with their Congressional majorities or that President Obama has lost his luster.  The explanation is simple: “Our candidate was a bad candidate who ran a bad campaign.”

As much as I dislike giving the current Democratic establishment anything of a pass, I will agree with this explanation—in part, at least. Martha Coakley *is* a lousy candidate. She lacks any type of pizzazz. She has a tin ear politically, is inept at thinking on her feet (as her recent comments about Catholics’ proper place in health care loudly attest), and spouts hoary bromides.  Thus, she has a marked inability to generate any excitement. Even the endorsement from The Boston Globe –normally full-throated cheerleaders for any and all Democrats—was, well, whelming.

This hardly should be surprising, however, considering Massachusetts’ status as a one-party state. Almost uniformly, one-party states produce politicians of little stature and scant excitement (although often of boundless entertainment value). They foster a class of politicians who contentedly work within the apparat, paying their dues, and patiently waiting their turn for a chance to move up for the next better job. The one-party state doesn’t foster any real principles beyond gaining and maintaining power; therefore, it routinely moves the goal posts on its members, and most of them uncomplainingly accept their new position. Those who object are seen as eccentrics to be tolerated or threats to be crushed.
 People who rise through such a system do not so much lead it as they serve it. On their way up, they don’t challenge the party’s thinking because doing so will queer their chances to move up. Once on top of the heap, they see no reason to change the system as their prominence is proof positive that it works just fine.  Cronyism, sweetheart deals, and jobbery as well as an occasional instance of truly bald corruption are tolerable, just the price of doing business. The system is as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end.

It should be no surprise, therefore, that the Massachusetts Democratic Party ended up the political equivalent of a bowl of cold oatmeal that is Martha Coakley as its candidate for the U.S. Senate. She dutifully came up through the system—one cannot get more “inside” than in Middlesex County—punching her tickets and preparing to run for the next better job.  Finally, she considered the nomination to be tantamount to election. So, it has been with no little peevishness that she now fights for what years of experience told her was rightfully hers.

If Scott Brown wins the Democrats can assign—rightfully—a large portion of the blame to Martha Coakley and her ineptitude as a candidate. However, they would be better served if they also admitted that she was the logical creation of the system that they have maintained for almost 50 years. 

Comments

[Crackie]

ODT, You are certainly correct that the system in the Bay State, as in other one party realms, yeilds many many time serveres for every person with spunk. And you are obviously not saying that such a system cannot yield a person with real talent--President Obama came out of a similar, although somewhat more competitive, environment.
However, Tuesday's margin will tell the tale--a Coakley victory or a narrow Brown victory will have much to do with her shortcomings. But some polls suggest a strong victory for the Republican is possible--in that case there would more clearly be a repudiation of the political powers that be in both Boston and DC. Tuesday night might just be interesting.
(In terms of what will occur, I notice that Caokley has dropped about 15 points on Intrade in the last 24 hours, so people betting on this are now seeing a 55% probablity of a Republican win.)