Massachusetts Senator-elect Scott Brown scored an incredible upset victory last night for the Republicans.  Winning the special election by a five point margin, Brown gained back a once-thought unattainable seat—one that has been in Democrat hands for 57 years.  And Kennedy hands no less. 

What’s got Democrats in a tizzy and Republicans thrilled about the victory is that the healthcare bill can now be filibustered by the 41st vote Brown will supply for the Republicans to block the reform.  For this reason, the media has called it a referendum on the Democrats’ healthcare reform efforts. 

This is especially poignant because Massachusetts has been a trial state for government-run healthcare reform, adopted there in 2006.  Since then, Massachusetts residents have seen premiums rise not fall and little to no improvement in quality of care.  Perhaps the election could be taken as proof that Massachusetts residents wouldn’t wish such a failed, big government reform on the rest of the nation.  Still, this seems unlikely for a state which voted overwhelmingly for Obama and his healthcare promises that hopeful November. 

It’s thus unclear whether the healthcare bill alone truly explains Massachusetts voters’ behaviour.  Brown’s election was not partisan in nature.  Only 15% of Massachusetts voters are registered Republicans in contrast to the 50% registered independents for whom issues of economic and financial security are especially important. 

Surely then, part of the statement behind the famously liberal state’s choice of Brown related to an overall dissatisfaction with Obama and the Democrats’ leadership in the first year.  The flailing economy, persistent deficit and continuous job loss still have voters fired up.  Brown’s campaign did well to emphasize the administration’s failure to deliver on its promises, providing a potential blueprint for the Republic Senate and House campaigns to come this year.

After only one year, independent voters put Brown in office because they no longer believe in the change they voted for in the November 2008 elections.  Obama’s approval rating is down from 52% in 2008 to 41% in 2009 amongst independents across the country and it’s no wonder why.  The recession has eased, but there are no jobs to be found.  Unemployment remains in the double digits.  The 800 billion dollar stimulus failed to provide anything stimulating.  Instead, it has more than tripled the 2008 deficit.  His health care reform bill was too partisan and costly to be popular.  And, on issues of national security and foreign policy, Obama has been slow to react and indecisive (Fort Hood, Afghanistan, Iran), making him seem amateur at best.  His first year has been nothing but politics as usual in Washington, but with more spending than any other president in his first year.      

If the Massachusetts upset tells us anything, it’s that American voters are still angry.  Unsurprisingly, it’s too deep a discontent to be appeased by undelivered and abstract campaign promises of “hope” and “change” this time around.  The Democrats better act swiftly while the ball’s still in their court.    

On our side of the pond, the Massachusetts message holds resonance too: Are British voters angry enough to send the same disapproval message to Labour after no less than 12 years?