Brad Sherman has taken the new 30th District,
despite the line-up of the entire Democratic Congressional Delegation, plus a
few Republican Senators thrown in, which supported the elder statesman Howard
Berman. Sherman won by twenty points, a greater margin than a number of polls
had originally projected.
Howard Berman had time, energy, experience, authority,
reason, and even some passion behind his run for reelection. Fellow political
machine partner Henry Waxman lambasted the editors in the Jewish Journal for
equivocating Berman’s and Sherman’s records in Congress. The two bald, Democrat
Jewish Congressmen sparred over who first authorized a provisional version of
the DREAM Act. They begged for votes, Democrats and Republicans, to get the
edge. Minute differences, exaggerated by personal attacks and petty attacking
points, seemed to have had but a minor impact. I met Republican and undecided
voters from the district, many of whom remained undecided within the last week
before the election.
What happened? Geography and local legacy happened, and both
were against Berman from the beginning. The new 30th District
contained half of Sherman’s old district, yet only one fourth of Berman’s
previous constituency. The numbers and the connections alone strongly suggested
that Sherman would take the seat.
However, even if you were a Berman supporter, even if you
were a conservative who is convinced that Leftist Tom Hayden’s connections with
Brad Sherman will cause more problems and create another machine to support
liberal Congressmen, even if you think that Brad Sherman is a corrupt bully,
there is more reason to rejoice and more to reflect upon than a half-full glass
of milk spilled and nothing but tears or fears remaining.
First of all, the power of national party incumbency as a
reason for or against a candidate has been wiped out for good. The residents of
the 30th Congressional district could not be swayed, even if President
Barack Obama had stepped in to cast his support for either candidate. Obama
supported Waxman, an unusual move considering that for 38 years Waxman did not
even need endorsements, let alone a campaign, but the demographics in the new
33rd strongly pointed to an edge.
Second, the growing role of the Hispanic vote is coming into
full force. Some pundits early on pointed out that Sherman’s more Latino
constituency maintained a larger representation in the district than the
previous Jewish vote. Local and national elections in the future must pay
attention to this growing voting bloc, a conservative constituency which feels
alienated by Republicans because of “harsh” or “ inconsiderate” stances on
immigration. If Republicans pay more attention to streamlining the welfare
programs and the naturalization process,
the Democratic Party will lose its one line of criticism that has disillusioned
Hispanics away from the GOP.
Third, the role and the character of Congressional races has
been manifested itself fully. The intended purpose of the Framers, their
expectations about the outcomes of the popular vote, has been maintained once
again. Congressmen respond to and depend on the direct popular vote of their
districts, not outside influence, as it should be. Perhaps instead of flipping
House Seats across the country, national party leaders need to focus on
preparing a simple, comprehensive platforms, and let the local candidates take
care of the rest of the pressing issues in their districts on their own.
On another note, national party leaders should pay more
attention to the election of Senators, whose representation is crucial to the
integrity of the states and the country. Senators who vote on confirmations to
Executive Cabinet positions and federal judges should not be elected in so
popular a franchise as direct election.
The carping and infighting of Congressional races, exposed in the intensity of
the 30th district race, does not belong among Senatorial candidates.
Two qualified candidates in Indiana and Missouri lost their elections in part
because of stray remarks, in part because the voters viewed their views on
austerity as too severe. The state legislatures better understand the fiscal
impact of a federal government which refuses to pass a budget, which refuses to invest state tax
funds and return dollars to the states. Legislatures cant guard the integrity and
authority of their states better, just as individual voters will best
articulate their interests to their Congressional representatives.
No comments:
Post a Comment