If Republican Scott Brown, the former Cosmo fold-out,  defeats Martha Coakley, the designated 60th Senate vote for Obamacare,  in the special election in Massachusetts to fill Ted Kennedy’s long-time seat, there will undoubtedly be a flurry of columns about how she was beaten, in the end, by irrelevant, trivial gaffes that only prove how silly and provincial Massachusetts voters can be. In particular, the state’s voters will be ridiculed for rejecting Coakley after she airily dismissed Boston Red Sox legend Curt Schilling as “a Yankee fan.” O.K., so she doesn’t follow the Red Sox. Big deal. You want to choose a senator on stuff like that?

Well, it is a big deal, as Massachusetts residents understand, even though Washington D.C. types and fans of the Oakland A’s will be incredulous. America has a representative democracy, which means that the elected officials we send to Washington are supposed to understand and know the people and regions they represent. This is part of their professional duty, in fact. One doesn’t take over a department or a division of a company without knowing its culture and history. One doesn’t become a scriptwriter or a director or even a performer in a long-running TV series without knowing the show’s background and plot. To do so would be incompetent, and it would also be disrespectful. A Senator from Texas had better know, not just who Jim Bowie and William Travis were, but who Almeron Dickenson was as well. The Senators from South Carolina had better not ask “Who?” when John C. Calhoun’s name is mentioned. Nor would they. It would be an insult to their state.

The Boston Red Sox is not just a sports team in Massachusetts. It is a cultural institution. One doesn’t have to be a Red Sox fan in the Bay State, but when citizens really don’t know the basic lore, there is a legitimate question whether they understand the area and its culture at all. Not knowing who Curt Schilling is—the heroic starting pitcher who took the mound in the 2004 play-offs with his ankle tendon crudely sown to skin of his foot, blood seeping through his sock, to defeat the hated New York Yankees on the way to winning the first World Championship for the Boston Nine in 86 years—makes a candidate for Senator appear as aloof and uninterested in the region as not knowing about The Freedom Trail, the Boston Massacre, baked beans, cod, Gloucester fisherman, Harvard, Red Auerbach, fried clams, swan boats, Plymouth Rock,  Jack Kennedy, Paul Revere, and the Great Molasses Disaster of 1919.

Coakley’s Schilling comment also conveyed the laziness and lack of commitment that has typified her candidacy.  You are running to represent the great state of Massachusetts, for heaven’s sake: bone up on it! Her ignorance shows a lack of diligence and commitment, as well as an intellectual and emotional detachment from those she is running to represent.

As the final insult to Massachusetts voters, Coakley’s spokesperson clumsily attempted to dismiss her “Yankee fan”  comment as a “joke.” So now we know: when Senator Coakley makes a mistake, we can expect spin and denials, no matter how ridiculous they may seem. She might have salvaged her Schilling humiliation by being honest, apologetic, and promising to become familiar with Fenway Park. Instead, she was dismissive. She still doesn’t get it.

I think the voters do. Someone who doesn’t know them  can’t competently represent them, or at least hasn’t earned sufficient trust to be granted the privilege of trying. If ignorance of the Bloody Sock defeats Martha Coakley, it will be consistent with the principles of representative democracy, while affirming the importance of trust, diligence, competence and respect in professional relationships.

These things matter. Just like the Bloody Sock.