Lonely Days and Lonely Knights: OC Resident Dr. Drew Was Once a MA Republican Political Science Professor

Republican Scott Brown's victory in MA is especially gratifying to me because I was once a resident of Massachusetts and active in Republican party politics.

As you may know, I was a young assistant professor at Williams College in MA between 1986 and 1989. While I was there, Williams College had the reputation of being the number one liberal arts college in the nation according to U.S. News & World Report.


As  an assistant professor, I was only one of three registered Republicans on the faculty. While I was there, I was friendly with two of the socialist professors who shaped the early intellectual life of Barack Obama while he was at Occidental College in Los Angeles - Professors Roger Boesche and Carlos Egan. I had known both Boesche and Egan when they were political science professors at Occidental College, my undergraduate institution.

Personally, I witnessed the damage caused by affirmative action face-to-face as objectively more qualified white faculty candidates were discriminated against in favor of African-Americans without comparable publication or research records. I complained about this injustice at the time...stressing the idea that affirmative action took away the honor of being a Williams College professor.

My own credentials were somewhat spectacular since I was the winner of the William Anderson Award from the American Political Science Association in 1989. My doctoral dissertation chair, Ronald King, still lists my award on his webpage in the teaching and advising section. My dissertation was later published, almost exactly as I wrote it, as part of an edited volume by Howard Gensler, The American Welfare System: Origins, Structure and Effects. If you follow this link above you can actually read excerpts of my work for free.

All in all, I'm so pleased to see Scott Brown elected as MA's next U.S. Senator. If the Democrat party liberals who ran Williams College had been more kind to me, then they might have had someone on the faculty who could have predicted the forces which lead to Brown's upset victory over Martha Coakley. Instead, it looks like liberal Democrats in Massachusetts (and elsewhere) were shocked and surprised by this result. It's sad that being the right sex, color and political ideology is now so much more important to college administrators and faculty than being able to explain and predict the political future.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Victory Over Obama - Peace at Last: The Meaning of Scott Brown's Victory in MA

The good news is the Obama administration has helped at least three people get new jobs, one each in VA, NJ, and now MA...

On a more serious note, it is clear that Scott Brown's triumphant entry into Washington, D.C. symbolized the collapse of one of the most powerful Presidential terms in U.S. history. Very rarely does an energetic new President come to office in complete control of both houses of Congress. Brown's startling victory, however, marks the end of the Obama revolution.

The Supreme Court also timed things perfectly driving a nail in the Obama administration's Marxist socialist fantasies. It's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, overruled two precedents: Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, a 1990 decision that upheld restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose political candidates, and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, a 2003 decision that upheld the part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 that restricted campaign spending by corporations and unions.

Moreover, the 2002 law, usually called McCain-Feingold, banned the broadcast, cable or satellite transmission of “electioneering communications” paid for by corporations or labor unions from their general funds in the 30 days before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before the general elections.

The law, as narrowed by a 2007 Supreme Court decision, applied to communications “susceptible to no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate.”

This decision is important from a theoretical perspective because the Supreme Court's rulings have a massive impact on the way we play the political game. This assertion, by the way, is controversial among traditional Marxists who underestimate the power of the state itself to regulate and control human behavior. The Supreme Court decision is welcome news for everyone who feared the growth of big government at the expense of the private sector. This move will give non-government organizations the resources they need to protect markets (and themselves) from undue political influence. I can always pick another corporation or insurance company. It's not so easy to find a new government.

In the domestic terrorism front, I think this concern was another issue raised by the Scott Brown campaign. Most of us think that it is fair to treat our enemy as enemies...and not as citizens in civilian court. Increasingly, Obama's divergent point of view is why a plurality of us would already prefer to vote for "someone else" to be President in 2012.

It's a pleasure to live in a country with freedom of speech. :) Personally, I was following the election results on Twitter and later on talk radio. Nevertheless, I figured out it was over for Coakley when Michael Barone said on FOX that turn out was high in the neighborhoods expected to go for Scott Brown. I'm grateful non-government institutions can now fight back against the goverment and against the big companies that own left wing media outlets like MSNBC or ABC or CBS or NBC.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

America Rising - Why We Fight: Quick Thoughts on the Significance of the Brown - Coakley MA Senate Contest

Reviewing the available polls, I think Scott Brown's victory in MA on January 19, 2010 will turn on how the people feel about federal health care reform. Clearly, voters in MA - from all political parties - are offended by the secret, behind-the-scenes negotiations, negotiations in which the average American is sacrificed to benefit big government, big business, and big international labor.



As Brown asserts, we can do better than ObamaCare. Brown will, in all likelihood, serve as the 41st vote to send health care reform back to the drawing board. I expect a revised, bipartisan initiative would allow tougher competition, more personal control, and greater choices for consumers. Meanwhile, I have no doubt that Brown's come-from-behind victory will be historically significant, it will stand in history as a defining moment when even Democrat decided they have had enough of Obama's dangerous Marxist socialist agenda.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Victory is Near: Scott Brown Cuts into Soft Underbelly of MA Democrat Party

If Scott Brown becomes the next Senator from MA it will be a victory of historic significance for the GOP and - according to Newt Gingrich - the death of health care reform.



Personally, I've done what ever I could to help Brown including mentioning him in my Tweets and spreading the address of a site that provides him with secure on-line donations. See, http://www.brownforussenate.com/Apparently, we was able to raise about $1.3 million dollars, on-line, in just one day.

I thought he was a long-shot until I saw one poll showing him ahead by one-point among likely voters. The most accurate view of the race probably comes from Scott Rasmussen. Rasmussen Reports shows Brown trailing his Democrat challenger by only two percentage points. If Rasmussen only counts those who are expressing virtual certainty that they will vote on Tuesday, then Brown wins by one percentage point.

The bottom line is that Brown's opponent ran way to the left of her primary challengers. She expresses the sort of extremist views than make people nervous, like suggesting that Al Queda is no longer in Afghanistan. In a humorous demonstration of incompetence, Brown's opponent spelled the name of their state as Massachusettes. Meanwhile, Brown is racking up an impressive list of newspaper endorsements, celebrity endorsements, and police union endorsements.

As for me, I'll be Tweeting about this campaign in the expectation that this election may be decided by only one vote.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Reviewing a Close Call: Obama Administration Discovers Islamic Terrorism

One of the most annoying things about Janet Napolitano was her belief that guys like me are among the top security threats to our nation because of our conservative views, Constitutional perspective, and commitment to various "single issue" causes. Now, however, it looks like the predictions that Obama's approach to terrorism would make us safer have all been proven wrong.

In this regard, I think it is entirely fair, and important, to point out that the recent terrorist attacks during the first year of the Obama administration can all be traced to its overly optimistic trust of devout Muslims. This is the common theme that runs through accounts of the Ft. Hood shooter, the panty bomber and the CIA base attack. As far as I can tell, participants in the Obama administration are so committed to their politically correct point of view that they don't understand that religious books have real world consequences.

Unfortunately for the Democrat party, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab - the 23-year-old Nigerian panty bomber - was brought to the attention of the Obama administration by British authorities prior to his attack.

This fact alone undermines the theory that Obama's genius and superior governing skills would keep us safe.

For me, increased national security starts with a proper understanding of the nature of the threat we face from radical Islam. The thesis of Dore Gold's excellent book - Hatred's Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global Terrorism - is that Wahabi Islam has always been a dangerous religious movement - even to other Islamic adherents. The violence of Wahabi Islamic thought predates the establishment of Israel.

Accordingly, it is extremely important for the Obama administration to adjust its risk profiles to take this into accout. Pretending that Islamic terrorism is the product of loneliness or mental illness or discrimination is going to get a lot more Americans killed. The recent uptick in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil shows the Obama administration needs to go back to whatever was working so well during the last six years of the Bush administration.

The news, of course, is not all bad. The practical elements of the Obama administration are already tightening up procedures regarding travellers from Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria, which are considered “state sponsors of terrorism” as well as citizens from Afghanistan, Algeria, Lebanon, Libya, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, and Yemen. These travellers will be subject to specialized intensive physical scrutiny.

Once again, conservatives are winning the battle of ideas. This is the same "profiling" program that I've argued for for years. I don't think all those searches of me and my luggage this year while I was visiting Northern California or Pennsylvania or Tennessee were making us any safer.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.