Brown hasn't shown courage needed to stand tall in Senate
But let’s ignore the campaign controversies du jour and consider a more important matter. If Republican Scott Brown wins, what kind of senator will he be?
On the stump, Brown has skillfully portrayed himself as a gutsy maverick who will chart his own independent course course in Washington, and that’s certainly an appealing vision.
Problem number one: It’s exceedingly hard to play that role in today’s US Senate. Sadly, the Senate has become a polarized place that discourages political independence and instead puts a premium on party unity. Anything controversial requires a filibuster-proof majority of 60 votes to pass, because almost everything is subject to a filibuster threat. Thus it would take a courageous Republican indeed (or, if positions were reversed, Democrat) to break with his colleagues and vote against a filibuster on issues the rest of the minority party wanted to block.
We’ve already had a good early test of Brown’s inclination there, and it’s been on health-care reform. If he were really an iconoclast, Brown could easily say this: Look, I have enough doubts about the legislation that I will vote against it, but I’m not going to support a filibuster to keep it from even coming to the floor.
That’s not what he’s done, however. Instead, Brown has campaigned on his eagerness to deny the bill’s supporters the last vote they could need to overcome a filibuster and bring the legislation to a vote.
Problem number two: Even as a candidate, Brown hasn’t displayed the courage such a doughty role would require. We saw a good demonstration of that failing in Monday’s debate, and on a matter he himself brought up. Asked about spiraling entitlement costs, Brown said he liked an idea that is gaining popularity among deficit hawks: establishing a bipartisan commission that, like base-closing commissions, would present recommendations to Congress for an up-or-down vote.
Now, any sober budget analyst will tell you that, given the magnitude of our fiscal problems, a realistic plan will require both spending cuts and new revenues. But when moderator David Gergen asked Brown if he would support such a commission’s recommendations if they included tax increases, Brown said no. That’s hardly the portrait of an elected official prepared to stand tall.
The same propensity is on display in Brown’s call for an additional across-the-board 15 percent tax cut. Without offsetting spending reductions, which Brown doesn’t offer, his proposal is simply a prescription for even larger deficits. That, of course, would translate into even more borrowing that the next generation will have to repay.
Problem number three: Brown hasn’t played the part of independent broker in the state Senate. He’s not a doctrinaire conservative - he earns good marks from environmental groups, for example - but he certainly leans right. Against gay marriage and for the death penalty, he is a staunch friend of Citizens for Limited Taxation and is rated an A-plus ally of the Gun Owners Action League.
Although well-liked by his colleagues, he hasn’t cast much of shadow at the State House. In a collegial body where well-informed, energetic Republicans can wield some real influence, he’s not regarded as particularly well-versed on the issues. Rather, he’s described as a lawmaker who dutifully attends formal Senate sessions, but at other times concentrates on engagements in his district or on his law practice.
“He has never been known as someone who is all that interested in legislation,’’ says one Republican.
So, bottom-line time: If you’re a conservative hoping to send someone to Washington who will join - and enable - Senate Republicans in their efforts to oppose President Obama’s domestic agenda, Scott Brown is unlikely to disappoint.
But if you’re a moderate looking for an independent thinker who will delve into the issues and be brave enough to speak tough truths, be wary. Brown hasn’t been that kind of leader to date, and there’s little reason to think he will grow into such a redoubtable role as a US senator.
