In the absence of exit polls, pundits are reading whatever they want in the Massachusetts Senate race.
But one thing is clear. The switch of a 47-year Democratic seat to Republican control will test the staying power of the now-slimmer governing party in Congress. It will also be a test of the resolve of President Obama, now starting his second year in office.
At stake is the health care reform package. Will the 59-member majority in the Senate and 256-member majority in the House backpedal on this core issue? Or will the majority renew its commitment and show that it can govern effectively by getting a bill to the president?
The 1930s Depression era provides some lessons. Franklin D. Roosevelt faced attacks in his first year in office from the left and right. He could have succumbed to the general spirit of discontent and limited his ambitions for taking on difficult problems. Instead, he embarked on a campaign of persuasion. Congress passed a bold program, including Social Security.
If Obama and the Democratic majority believe their own rhetoric that health care reform is right, they must show their mettle and approve the overhaul. Anything short of that will reveal a shameful lack of courage.
The Senate has passed an amended version of the House bill. The House could simply pass that Senate version and send it to the president to sign. This is where House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the other California negotiators, George Miller and Henry Waxman, will have to persuade their members.
It is clear that this is a “now or never” time. No bill is perfect and this one could be improved. For example, Congress needs to get real about reimbursements to states and physicians for services to the elderly and poor.
Ironically, the winning candidate in Massachusetts praised that state’s health reform of 2006: “The plan is not perfect, and we need to get costs down, but we have already achieved near-universal coverage.” He opposed the national bill because he fears added costs for Massachusetts as other states expand coverage. Massachusetts residents will continue to debate whether that state would do better paying the full tab for its one-state reform or benefit from the federal bill.
In the coming California election, Sen. Barbara Boxer will have to defend her stand against whichever challenger emerges, as will every House member. That’s a good thing.
As Massachusetts has shown, state-by-state experimentation has its place. For California and other states, the issue is whether proposed national reforms would be better than the current system. For that, the answer remains “yes” – even after the Massachusetts election.