The 2010 midterm elections have come and gone, and so begins the time-honored tradition of political observers of all stripes making an attempt at interpreting what exactly the results will mean for the government and, ultimately, the country. I find myself unable to resist engaging in said tradition; thus follows my own view of what the election means and what might happen going forward.
Before one makes that attempt, however, it is important to try to understand the general meaning of elections in this country. Structurally, elections are the point of contact between the people and the government that obviously has the most influence, and thus the most significant ramifications. Other lines of communication, such as letters and phone calls to your Congressman or Senators, pale in their impact on government policy in comparison to voters exercising their franchise, as this most recent election has clearly demonstrated. Given this point, there are several questions that should first be asked before one attempts this interpretive exercise.
To start, one must evaluate whether or not the electorate was determined to use that influence to send an explicit and mostly uniform message to those that govern it, or if voters were simply all over the place in their agenda. I think it is plain for all to see that Americans were largely aligned in their feelings about their own situations and the country in general, in that they see an economy sputtering through a so-called recovery, they see themselves and everyone they know struggling to make ends meet and to figure out the road forward, and, most importantly, they don't see the government doing anything that is explicitly designed to help them out. Now, there are plenty of folks, including many who were just voted into office, who will say this election was a rebuke of Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi, of the Democrats' Big-Government Agenda, of Out-Of-Control Spending and Taxes, of any number of things. These same people were probably saying over the last year and a half that Obama over-interpreted the voters' message from 2008 and pulled the country in an uncomfortably left-wing direction, and perhaps they're right; anyone who considers himself affiliated with the Tea Party, whether politician or voter, would certainly agree. But what about the broader electorate? Even in blood-red-conservative states like Texas and Oklahoma, only 1 in 3 voters identify with the Tea Party movement, so it would be rather disingenuous to try and pass this message off as that of the much larger bloc of less partisan voters. If I may speculate, I would say that most voters probably couldn't care less about what goes on in Washington if the states of their households were more on the level. But in times of economic upheaval, it only makes sense that the voting public would send the message that whatever the politicians are doing is not working to improve their quality of life, and thus they decide to give someone else a try. Trying to tackle issues of behemoth proportions like healthcare and energy are important, and would maybe even play well with voters under normal economic conditions, but Americans are, justifiably, too concerned with their wallets and retirement funds to believe that those issues are more important than bringing down unemployment.
So if the message voters are sending to Washington is one of frustration with their own economic situations and apprehension about the future of the economy, the second question one must ask is: what do the voters want the new office-holders to do about it? Just as Democrats over-interpreted the voters' message in 2008 (or perhaps miscalculated their response to that message), so must the new political order take care to avoid doing the same. If the Republican majority in the House makes it a top priority to repeal the new healthcare law (which is all but guaranteed not to happen with Obama wielding the veto pen), do they really think this is going to endear them to the broader electorate, outside the Tea Party folks? Will proposals to prevent "anchor babies" from gaining citizenship do anything to reduce unemployment? Unlikely. Therefore, wouldn't it serve them better to pursue legislation that puts job creation and economic growth at the top of the list, rather than undoing the (granted, decidedly liberal) legislation passed during the first two years of Obama's presidency?
Which brings me to the third question: what should the President and (the remaining) Congressional Democrats do, now that their ability to shape and pass legislation has been drastically reduced? The smart things would seem to be maintaining a laser-like focus on job creation and growth, then hammering the Republicans any time they get side-tracked from that (it would clearly have behooved Democrats to have done this from the start and tackled healthcare, etc. when the economy had gotten back on its feet, but what's done is done). Many Republicans, including soon-to-be-Speaker Boehner, have stated publicly that there are certain issues on which they will absolutely refuse to compromise. If Obama proposes any job-creation legislation that incurs new spending and/or raised taxes (of any kind), presumably those Republicans would keep that promise. Therefore, if the Democrats can push job-creation legislation that is deficit-neutral and only raises taxes by, say, eliminating corporate tax loopholes or increasing oil/excise/plastic surgery taxes, a lack of any nascent job creation can be hung effectively and genuinely on the Republicans.
I have maintained since January 20th, 2009 that Obama's reelection chances are better than even. I also think they will continue to march higher and higher as the 112th Congress goes about its business.
No comments:
Post a Comment