This is an opinion column
I’ve heard some bad concession speeches in my day. Speeches that whined or failed to give credit to an adversary where due. But I’ve never heard anything as pathetic as the farewell to a 40-year political career Rep. Mo Brooks gave in the wake of his defeat for the Republican nomination for US Senate.
We all understand the heightened emotion of a hard-fought campaign. I’ve watched people work their fingers to the bone and go into election night with a narrow lead, only to have it all go up in flames–in a matter of a couple of hours–as the returns come in. That’s hard. You can almost understand a candidate reeling from that kind of loss, struggling to say the right things.
But when you’ve been in politics since Jesus was a boy, and you go into election night down 20+ points by most estimates, you’re not suffering from “loss shock” when you take the platform to concede. Mo Brooks wasn’t stunned when Tuesday’s run-off was called in Britt’s favor. He was just bitter.
Brooks wouldn’t even extend to Katie Britt the respect of calling her by name. I’ve seen 8th-grade girls handle not making the cheerleading squad with more class.
In Brooks’ speech, he blamed a whole laundry list of people and groups for his loss, none of whom were named “Mo Brooks.” They included the bogeymen Special Interest Groups, Alabama Democrats, and my favorite of all–Alabama voters, whom he suggested are dumb.
I can’t imagine why he didn’t connect with said voters.
Let’s talk about money and those special interest groups. Alabama businesses and farmers that want to survive naturally support candidates they believe will advance policies to make that possible. In this race, those businesses and individuals generously opened their pocketbooks to Katie Britt, while Mo had trouble raising in-state cash. The people who live here and knew both candidates well went overwhelmingly in one direction.
Those businesses and farmers–who employ countless Alabamians, keeping the economic lifeblood of our state flowing and keeping us fed–have that right. If Mo wanted to be able to raise money from the titans of Alabama industry and agriculture, he should have done a better job of building a resume that earned their confidence. He could have won over some portion of those business leaders by demonstrating a commitment to Alabama’s critical military installations, which have a massive economic impact on our state. But he didn’t.
He had 40 years to make his case.
Let’s talk about the PAC money and negative ads Brooks bemoaned in his election-night screed. The first negative ads Alabamians saw in this contest rolled out the week of the 2021 Iron Bowl and were attacks on Katie Britt funded by out-of-state PAC Club for Growth. They would go on to spend more than $2.6 million against Britt throughout the race.
With Brooks’ advocates going negative first, PACs friendly to Britt were compelled to return fire in a big way. Sometimes you mess with the bull and get the horns.
Notably absent from Mo’s concession speech was an acknowledgment of the loose thread that most weakened the fabric of his campaign: the work ethic differential. While he made few appearances in the early months of the race, counting on the Trump endorsement and his 100% name ID to carry the day for him, Katie Britt was wearing the asphalt off Alabama roads. She and her husband, Wesley, were shaking hands and kissing babies around the clock at every tomato festival and BBQ joint statewide.
That commitment to grassroots politics gave Britt a toehold from which to start moving the polling needle. Her in-state fundraising (remember those Alabama businesses?) allowed her to buy ads and billboards that increased her familiarity with Alabama voters. And then the foundation of Brooks’ whole campaign cracked: as Britt’s stock rose and Brooks’ numbers cratered, Donald Trump began to fall out of love.
Ultimately, Trump abandoned Brooks, leaving him beaten and bruised on the side of the road. To his credit, Brooks managed enough of a rally after the fact to pull back into second place and make the run-off. But he couldn’t catch the runaway freight train of Katie Britt.
Not once in his entire election-night diatribe did Mo Brooks accept any responsibility for his demise or give credit to the Britt campaign for running a competitive race. Brooks’ sense of entitlement to elective office was on full display, however. It occurred to me: on the cultural right, we often talk about the “victim mentality” we see exhibited on the left in postmodern America. Mo Brooks proved in his speech that he can play the victim card as well as any sensitive, latte-sipping progressive millennial alive.
Brooks tried hard to paint Britt as the choice of Alabama Democrats. I know some centrist or left-leaning voters who have so little confidence in Democratic state party leadership they have resigned themselves to living in a one-party, Republican-controlled state for now. And when they know they will be stuck with one of the Republican contenders as their Senator, why wouldn’t they pragmatically try to eliminate at least the one they hate the most?
But pro-life, pro-2nd amendment, pro-border wall Katie Britt is not the darling of the left, not even in Alabama. If a small number of independents or Democrats voted for her, it’s because they were willing to gamble on something new or simply hated her less than they hated Mo Brooks.
Ultimately, cross-over votes were inconsequential given the margin of victory in this run-off. Katie Britt is the Republican nominee for the US Senate because a large margin of Republican voters chose her over Brooks. Mo can call them “unwise” or whatever else, but this is America.
And Alabama Republicans have spoken.
Dana Hall McCain writes about faith, culture, and politics for AL.com. Follow her on Twitter for thoughts on these topics and more @dhmccain.
