The Senate Needs More Mavericks Like Ed Brooke

When people ask how I could have possibly grown up in a Republican home in the middle of urban West Baltimore, I remind them that once upon a time, moderate Republicans were far from extinct (or vulnerable to the dreaded Republican-in-Name-Only label). My reliably Democratic Maryland elected Republican Charles "Mac" Mathias to the U.S. Senate, where he served from 1969 to 1987.

New England also elected its share of Republicans from states other than Maine. Black Protestant Republican Edward Brooke represented Massachusetts in the Senate from 1967 to 1979, where he supported civil rights and introduced legislation to name a special prosecutor in the Watergate scandal. He wasn't alone in putting principle above party. Civil rights legislation – stalled by resistance from Southern Democrats -- could not have been passed without GOP support.

Brooke, now 90, on Wednesday received the Congressional Gold Medal at the Capitol while President Barack Obama and admirers from both parties looked on. Obama, a beneficiary of Brooke's pioneering path, said: "He didn't care whether a bill was popular or politically expedient, Democratic or Republican -- he cared about whether it helped people, whether it made a difference in their daily lives. That's why he fought so hard for Medicare, for mass transit and the minimum wage, for civil rights and women's rights. It's why he became a lifelong advocate for affordable housing, establishing protections that are the standard to this day."

In turn, Brooke admonished the politicians in attendance – with a special nod to Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell -- to work together to solve the country's problems. Good luck there. Health care? Republicans and Democrats can't even agree on a hate-crimes bill that extends protection to gay men and lesbians, a move Brooke advocated years ago.

There's nothing wrong with standing firm for one's beliefs, or representing the views of the citizens who elected you. But too often, whether you agree with or rebel against, say, spending, depends on whether the person occupying the White House is named Bush or Obama.

I'm not saying every senator has to be a maverick like Ed Brooke. But maybe one or two?