Will this election make a difference? Steve Chapman (November 4, 2010) says one reason the status quo is so durable is that the differences between the two parties, when it comes to actual governing, are not nearly as large as they like to pretend. They expend vast amounts of cash in the indulgence of what Sigmund Freud called "the narcissism of small differences." But after the elections are over, the parties come back to the large ground of commonality. Such a view suggests that elections do not matter that much. Granted, they may not matter as much as committed people on the Left and Right would like. The complex nature of American governance will tend toward keeping the status quo. I am confident that many who voted for Obama, for example, expected that soldiers would be out of Iraq and Afghanistan by now, and that the nation would have single pay health insurance.
Yet, from the politically conservative perspective, the election of Obama and the Democrat Party in 2008 has made a large difference – in the wrong direction. I think elections matter. The quality of life in a democracy is, in part, determined by political governance. The point is to make them increasingly just, peaceful, and loving, apart from coercion. For many political conservatives, the message of the past two years has been one of federal smothering of individual lives, whether through taxes, health care, and regulation.
In any case, the election of 2010 has mattered. I hope that I can express at least a little of difference that it makes.
Cultural advances by groups in a society and a political party are important. In 2006, the Republican Party was described as a white, male, and southern party. Such is no longer the case. The election saw Republicans add two magnificent new black faces to the Congress. Allen West in Florida beat Ron Klein 54.3 percent to 45.7 percent (with 97 percent counted, Klein wouldn't concede). Remember his name, for he is an Iraq war hero. He could be one of those “rising stars.” Tim Scott in South Carolina defeated Ben Frasier, 65-29. Republicans also launched three new Hispanic stars this election: Sen.-elect Marco Rubio from Florida and the new governor of New Mexico, Susanna Martinez, the first female Hispanic governor in US history. A Hispanic Republican – Brian Sandoval – defeated Rory Reid, son of the very man who said he could not understand how any Hispanic could be Republican. It was not close: Sandoval dominated Rory Reid and secured a double-digit victory. In Washington, Jaime Herrera chose not to highlight her Hispanic origins in her battle against Democrat Denny Heck for the open seat in Washington’s third Congressional District. She ran a very strong, issues-based campaign, and won comfortably. And Republicans got a bonus Sikh -- Nikki Haley, the new governor of South Carolina, nominated by Republicans and attacked because of her background. The other Indian governor is another Republican, Bobby Jindal. Raul Labrador, a Puerto Rico-born attorney, pulled an upset victory over incumbent Democrat Walt Minnick in Idaho’s first Congressional District, in which the Democrat tried a racially charged ad against his opponent that, thankfully, backfired. Although such facts on the ground will make it harder to accuse Republicans of being racist, I am confident that those on the Political Left will figure out a way.
As many have noted, the most important outcome of this week's election may be the change in the state gubernatorial and legislative races. Next year, state lawmakers draw new congressional districts, determining the congressional map for the next decade. In the past, Democrats have had a 2-1 advantage in congressional redistricting. Not anymore. Tuesday night, Republicans won governorships in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Tennessee, Alabama, Nebraska, Kansas, Texas, Georgia, South Carolina -- pause, deep breath -- New Mexico, Nevada, Wyoming, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Arizona, Utah, Idaho, Alaska, Maine, Iowa and Florida. They also swept the state legislatures. Meanwhile, the Democrats won governor's races in California, New York, Massachusetts, Arkansas and Maryland. The advantage that Republican Party governors have is that the governors of New Jersey and Virginia have already pointed the way to how to act quickly on behalf of their states.
Clearly, California and New York remain bastions of liberalism despite the economic decay brought about by liberal government and high taxes. Like an addict, the people of these two states have not yet “hit bottom.” When they do, they may reach out to the hand that can help, that is, cutting the cost of government, cutting regulation, and reducing taxes on producers.
People often think in terms of “making a difference.” Tea partiers won some and lost some, but their influence was strong enough to make a statement: the movement has made a difference. Christine O’Donnell and Sharron Angle lost by healthy margins, but Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, and others won big. Voters from Pennsylvania to Wisconsin elected politicians with a distinctly conservative bent — one that was clearly influenced by the tea party.
It was a “wave” election, the third one we have had since 2006. Could we have another such wave in two years? Absolutely, and I am not predicting which way the wave would go. The house has not had a switch of over 60 votes since 1948. As Michael Brone (November 4, 2010) notes, then, as now, very fundamental issues about the size and scope of government were at stake. Britain's Labor government went fully into socialism, and Roosevelt proposed the same program in in 1944. The people said no to Roosevelt in 1946 and in 1948. Even the surprise switch in 1994 was one of 54 votes. Democrats gained 31 seats in 2006 and another 23 seats in 2008. The fact that the Senate remains in the hands of the Democrat Party reflects facts on the grounds. Many of the Senate seats were open in solid Democrat states, as well as only one third of the seats were on the table. Personally, I never had much confidence in the Senate going Republican.
Victor Davis Hanson (November 4, 2010) says that on Tuesday voters rejected President Obama's attempt to remake America in the image of an imploding Europe -- not just by overwhelmingly electing Republican candidates in the House, but by preferring dozens of maverick conservatives who ran against establishment Washington. He asks, Why the near-historic rebuke? Out-of-control spending, unchecked borrowing, vast new entitlements and unsustainable debt -- all at a time of economic stagnation. So what is next? Like the recovering addict who checks himself into rehab, a debt-addicted America just snapped out of its borrowing binge, is waking up with the shakes, and hopes there is still a chance at recovery. It will not be easy. Obama and his Democrat Congress ran up nearly $3 trillion in new debt in just 21 months -- after running a disingenuous 2008 campaign that falsely promised to rein in the fiscal irresponsibility that had been rampant during the spendthrift Bush administration. So the voters intervened and sent America in for rehab treatment. In our three-step road to recovery, we, the sick patient, must first end the denial, then accept the tough medicine, and finally change the entrenched habits that caused the addiction. Hanson offers the opinion that Republicans should be willing to be demagogued by a weakened Obama as heartless and cruel budget cutters -- even if the president may well be the ultimate beneficiary by running on the new theme of fiscal responsibility and a recovering economy in 2012.
Larry Elder (November 4, 2010) offers that Obamalism has now been arrested. Voters rose to say no to the two-year gusher of spending and the staggering increases in the annual deficit and the national debt. Under Obama and the Democratic congressional majority, the national debt, as a percentage of GDP, jumped from 69 percent to a projected 94 percent. Voters said, "Enough!" I know it frustrates good Democrats and good liberals that Republicans could be the party of “No.” However, in essence, the voters were saying “No,” and the Republican Party was the vehicle for that expression. As Michael Barone puts it, Americans gave their verdict on the Obama Democrats' sharp increases in government spending and Obamacare. It was as resounding a "no." As Steve Chapman (November 4, 2010) put it, the GOP takeover of the House is far more useful as a brake than a steering wheel. The new majority can stop Obama from advancing new proposals by voting them down. But it cannot force him to accept Republican ones.
At this point, I think, we may see a difference between England and America on the one hand and France and Greece on the other. England is now going through a difficult process of reducing government spending and regulation, and doing so without riots in the streets. I think the American people are ready for changes in Social Security and other entitlement programs, as well as the corporate welfare on which too many on Wall Street have come to depend. They will do so without riots in the streets. If so, this result will be quite different from that of France and Greece, where riots occur because government increases the retirement age from 60 to 62. I think it instructive that America produces a tea party that makes a difference toward less government, and the French and Greeks both riot in the streets to have more government.
Nothing I have said should give the Republican Party too much of a “head trip.” The voters saying to Obama and the Democrat Party is not the same as the voters saying “yes” to the Republican Party.
As one looks ahead, the election proves there is a potential to repudiate the political left, but now Republicans have to think through how to replace it with a center-right governing majority. The challenge of thinking through, explaining and implementing a replacement strategy as national policy will make the next two years an intriguing time, especially for those who seek the Republican Party nomination for president in 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment