Today is November 3, 2010, the day after a massive repudiation of the last two years. But a repudiation of what? The goals? The plan? Or the process?
Several of the commentators I've heard suggest the goals were wrong, and that's certainly possible. Clearly, President Obama's vision was not for everyone. In fact, I'd suggest that his goals were not aligned with those of everyone who voted against him in November, 2008 including almost everyone who calls him or herself a Republican.
But what about those who voted for him in 2008? What happened to the thousands and thousands of Independents who went to the polls in November, 2008 and voted for a new vision, a new approach, a new set of goals? It's apparent that they didn't like what was happening. They turned out in mass yesterday to vote another way. Were they voting, however, for new goals or a new process?
Voting for new goals means they changed their mind. It means that, once they understood the implications of the original goals, they were no longer in favor of them. What were the implications? It would cost too much, take too long, require too much sacrifice, require not enough sacrifice - you name it. So, one thing that happened was that the electorate went from "Uninformed Optimism" to "Informed Pessimism." And they "Checked Out" (please note that the phrases in quotations are borrowed from the writings of Daryl Conner, author of (among other books) "Managing at the Speed of Change." Daryl is one of my mentors and a true visionary in this field.).
The other option is that they hated the process. Perhaps that was because the process they were promised was not the process that was followed. In the months leading up to the election of November, 2008, then-candidate Obama promised bi-partisanship, reaching across the aisles, an attempt to work together. However, it never happened. Or, if it did, it wasn't visible to the people. And so, a normal reaction occurred: "You lied to us. You said you would reach across the aisle and you didn't. I'm mad at you. I'm voting you out."
It's a bit unpredictable to say what would have happened if the President had made visible and constant efforts towards bipartisanship - there are so many dynamics and variables at play. But I'd be willing to bet that yesterday's results would have been somewhat, if not significantly, different.You may disagree. Here's the trump card: I think the American people are smart. They know it took years to get into the mess we're in today, and that it will take years to get out. So, after only two years, they weren't voting on the success or failure of the programs - they know that there hasn't been time for new programs to make a huge impact. They were voting on the vitriol, animus, arrogance, and downright hypocrisy that they saw for the last two years. They didn't like the process. They let people know it.
And two years from now, if nothing changes, they'll do it again.
Posts
2 comments:
I agree. We've created a political pendulum and we, the people, will keep it moving.
I think your trump card on "smart Americans" is only half-right. I think there is a large segment of the population who are "smart" enough to see that last two years did more harm than good (spending at unprecedented levels, hurry-up-and-vote-before-they-notice process, etc.). But there is surely another very large contingency that has the attention span of a squirrel and votes with the wind. The big banks got theirs, but where's my bailout? might go the thinking. People are without jobs.
Tuesday was the confluence of these groups (or more) that aligned to make it such a record swing. So, if the GOP can actually accomplish something with this shift then the "smart" people will notice and stay with them. Likewise, enough of the wind-voters may benefit (via pocketbook) from such would-be accomplishments and likewise keep the momentum going.
However, just as likely is that the wind-voters will get frustrated by the political standoffs that will surely result, the morals-voters and libertarians will get frustrated (for separate reasons) at the lack of results from the GOP's new-gained power, and 2012 will be back to fractured support for the GOP, still-weakened support for the Dems, and a larger-than-ever swing population split about 3 ways. In such a world the Dems will keep more of their base than the GOP, but neither will be strong enough for much. I predict (although 2012 is probably too soon to see it, but...) the "fractured middle" will grow to be the actual majority -- but their ideologies of course will never enable such a majority to develop. But it will change the national political landscape as we know it.
2020 will look _nothing_ like today.
Post a Comment