My take on Scott Brown winning the senate seat in Massachusetts, involves technology and its rapid advancement. As humanity becomes more detached through use of multiple and constantly updated devices, there’s a further alienation from any kind of “normality” (conservatism) that might still remain from the 50s. Whether it’s through our parents and the way they act, or reaching further back to the recollected stories are grandparents may share with us on occasion.
I think that the last 10 years has seen such an increase in information bombardment, opinion, speculation, and soundbyte cynicism…that strangely as things become more fragmented, there’s a desperate need to revert back to this safe threshhold of a black/white political outlook.
Massachusetts voters turned to someone like Scott Brown because he clearly stated what he’s going to do as senator. Clearly and in as few words as necessary. This is even how Ron Paul ran for president…but he was older, not as attractive as Scott Brown, and was a bit too extreme for the majority of Americans – or TOO honest. We like the truth in small bites.
I do think he’s 10x more articulate and intelligent than Sarah Palin, but the style is very similar. It’s more like a Bono approach (broad cliches with a go get em’ attitude), over a more liberal/dense message from a Henry Rollins…which is more anecdotal, slicing up the system in a more fragmented way.
In a way, with the unlimited access we now have with the internet, you’d think the voter would be more demanding on specific ways a politician would solve problems. Instead it feels like the safest way to get elected is to be broad, personable (exuding a kind of celebrity appeal at all times), and to be “just like everyone else.” I mean after all, they are voted in to represent the most number of people within a state, so how can a strong sense of normality not be promoted? I think the psychology of what makes a normal senator/president/politician is fascinating and a whole other area to look into.
I think if Brown truly stays indepedent aside from lobbyists, manipulative republicans, and the like – then yes we should all rejoice as citizens. I just wonder what smaller government means, when government is already in place, meaning people, jobs, and infastructure. If banks are too big to fail, then where does that put government as it currently is? Isn’t government growth somewhat necessary as our population grows and we hook on to a world economy?
Either way new blood can never be a bad thing. Even if he fulfills some promises for the first few years…then becomes corrupt and starts to becoming fully part of the washington machine. I think temporary change/progress is the most we can hope as a citizenary. As a collective whole, a few extra tax bucks in our pockets today is always more appealing than long-term health care reform, which could affect our kids and their kids. Whether this is a sign of our times, or the rational way to view politics/life, is anyone’s guess.