The aftermath of the Tennessee special election offers a striking illustration of how power dynamics play out in politics. When one loses, the common expectation is to regroup and move on. However, Democratic state Rep. Aftyn Behn seems to have missed that memo. Following her defeat to GOP candidate Matt Van Epps, Behn decided to use her concession call not as a gesture of sportsmanship, but as an opportunity to lecture the victor on healthcare policy.
This action raised eyebrows, particularly given the context of her campaign. Behn, described as a “very radical person,” had previously expressed support for controversial positions like defunding the police—positions that do not align with the views of many voters. Her comments in the aftermath of the election suggest a disconnect from the electorate’s real concerns.
Throughout her campaign, polls indicated a competitive race, yet Van Epps emerged victorious with nearly a nine-point margin. Despite not replicating Trump’s widespread success in the district during the previous election, this result was still unexpected for many pundits. That Behn recognized the defeat as a “moral victory” is perplexing. She stated, “We may not have won tonight, but we changed the story of what’s possible here,” attempting to frame her loss in a positive light.
This kind of rhetoric is indicative of a larger trend common among political losers. Rather than accepting defeat quietly, Behn chose to engage in what can only be described as a lecture on Obamacare during her concession. She told Van Epps, “Do not let the Affordable Care Act subsidies expire. Do not raise healthcare costs for working families in Tennessee.” A bold move, indeed, considering the optics of a losing candidate dictating terms to the winner.
Critics highlight the irony in Behn’s position on healthcare, given her past support for an agenda that may very well lead to increased costs for families. While claiming to protect healthcare subsidies, she fails to acknowledge the broader implications of her party’s policies, especially in light of a government shutdown over similar funding issues. Behn’s intention appears to be an effort to maintain relevance in a narrative that is consistently pinned against her radical stances.
Furthermore, her attempt to lecture the winner raises valid questions about her grasp on political realities. Tennesseans appear to understand that adding another voice in favor of expanding subsidies would not yield improvements in affordability. With the vote clearly showing a preference for Van Epps—who represents a starkly different ideology—Behn’s assertion that she could influence policy discussions post-election appears out of touch.
In examining her campaign expressions, from opposition to prayer in public offices to emotional outbursts during protests against Governor Lee, one cannot help but wonder about her preparedness for high-stakes politics. The seriousness of governance contrasts sharply with her self-described “radical” beliefs. How can one expect to affect real change when they cling to increasingly unpopular ideologies?
In this light, Behn’s actions offer a cautionary tale for any politician about to embark on a contentious race. The lesson here is clear: to dictate terms, one must first secure power. The voters ultimately decided against Behn, and sticking to a narrative of changing possibilities didn’t resonate enough to outweigh her perceived shortcomings. Critics agree: had Behn secured the victory, the implications for Tennessee—and indeed, the country—would likely be significant and detrimental.
Ultimately, the state and the nation dodged what could have been a considerable misstep. Behn’s behavior encapsulates a tendency wherein some politicians refuse to align reality with their ambitions. For now, Matt Van Epps stands where Behn sought to be, armed with the mandate that only a winner can claim. The stark juxtaposition of their futures ensures that politics remains a demanding battlefield where clarity and pragmatism are paramount.
"*" indicates required fields
