The Elections You May Not Have Noticed

Most of the country probably didn't notice. Unless you live in Virginia, New Jersey, a couple areas in New York, or maybe even Maine or Washington state, it's quite possible you heard little about Tuesday's elections. But to the chattering class of D.C., it is likely that the rest of the week, maybe even longer, will be spent reading the entrails of this off-year election.

To save you some time, let me sum up all the coverage for you. Republicans won gubernatorial seats in Virginia and New Jersey by quite a bit. Republican Mayor Bloomberg kept his seat in New York City, but it was a lot closer than most expected. In New York's 23rd Congressional District, a Democrat won even though polls had consistently shown the Conservative (a third party candidate) with a solid lead. Maine rejected a gay marriage law and Washington expanded domestic partnership rights for gay couples.

What does it all mean? Republicans are declaring a comeback -- proof that the nation has turned on Obama, his policies, and the role of government in almost anything. They see a resounding referendum that the country is tired of Democratic leadership. Democrats are excusing the losses due to weak candidates and historical precedents in those states of poor performance in off-years; they're also touting the 23rd Congressional District and Bloomberg's weaker than expected performance as proof that the president and the Democrats still get it and have public support, or at least most of them.

I think there is a different lesson here -- one I have been thinking about a lot lately.

People don't care about Washington, D.C. as much Washington, D.C. thinks people care about it.

In fact, I think as people continue to see so much of politics as usual in this town -- partisan bickering and big money buying votes -- they are increasingly likely to vote against whatever represents the old politics for them. Obama campaign rallies in Virginia and New Jersey were not enough to convince the people there that the candidate with a "D" beside the name would be the best choice for their state. New York's 23rd District went to a Democrat for the first time since the Civil War despite support for the Conservative, including an aggressive cable news campaign from Glenn Beck, a radio campaign from Rush Limbaugh and a visit from Sarah Palin. But high profile visits and endorsements from right wing luminaries and Republican presidential hopefuls were not enough to win a Congressional seat in one of the most conservative districts in New York state. Mayor Bloomberg is estimated to have spent over $100 million during the campaign (I saw it broken down to $170 per voter!) to win by just five points while his nearest challenger only spent one-tenth of that amount. Democrat Jon Corzine spent 25 million of his own dollars to outspend the Republican candidate in New Jersey, but it wasn't enough to counter the popular reaction to another Wall Street tycoon wanting to keep buying political power.

I think people are tired of the power of money and the grip of power in politics. After 30 years in Washington, D.C., I know I'm tired of seeing the kind of influence money has in politics and was glad to see it resisted in several of the election results. I am sick of hearing the rants and raves of talk show hosts and demagoguery in politics, and the people of New York's 23rd District showed quite clearly that they were not going to be steamrolled by it. One year ago, the majority of the people in this country voted for "a change they could believe in," and many are still waiting.

The importance and impact of a very few elections this week has already been greatly exaggerated. But the signs of discontent go far beyond the preference for one party over another; they indicate a deeper rejection of old politics. That discontent will soon turn into more cynical withdrawal unless people begin to see a "new politics" worth their energy and involvement. But that new politics will never exist if we simply wait for it to come from Washington; we must create it and help it grow by the social movements we build. And the voters who turned out in Virginia and New Jersey just demonstrated that they aren't convinced yet that a new politics is coming from Washington, D.C.

Jim Wallis is the author of The Great Awakening, Editor-in-Chief of Sojourners and blogs at www.godspolitics.com.

Click here to get e-mail updates from Jim Wallis

 

Follow Jim Wallis on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jimwallis

Comments

[AnnfromCA]

Vote the rascals out!

[wheresthetruth]

think your analysis is correct. I believed the promise of sweeping change promised by Obama and grow more disillusioned by the day. Where is financial reform and accountability, Fed transparency, and the rollbacks of the Bush abuses of executive privilege? Where is any kind of plan or strategy to get us out of the middle east? Where is health reform that isn't slanted toward protecting profits over people?

Sure people were fed up with Bush, but it was the promise of sweeping change that brought out the vote for Obama and the Dems who rode in on his coattails. If the Dems don't wise up, voters will continue to stay at home or vote against the incumbent just like they did in VA and NJ.

I hope they wise up.

[SaltySaltillo]

In Houston - the biggest city in the biggest red state of them all - a Lesbian Democrat got the highest percentage of vote for mayor... Of course it doesn't fit into the CNN-Fox Ditto Narrative so you wouldn't know. But I think the fact that the Houston mayoral election comes down to a run off between a Lesbian Democrat and a black Democrat is proof that 2009 local elections are just that: local. Even if the locality is a state like VA or NJ or a city like NYC.

[isjois]

Where are the pastors and religious leaders? Back in the 1960s, many stood up for civil rights.

Why are they now silent about everything other than abortion, gay marriage and personal responsibility?

Many of our politicians and corporations are greedy and corrupt. But, we don't hear church leadership challenging those in power to act morally, fairly and compassionately. There are plenty of sermons about "tithing", "living within your means" and...hmmm...the things I listed above.

Why doesn't the church step up and really lead? There is such a moral vacuum right now. I know they can't (and shoudn't) advocate for particular politicians or policies...but, why can't they stand up and fight for the oppressed in our society? Why can't they challenge their members who are wealthy and powerful to share and show compassion to their neighbors? Why can't they start to effectively stand up for the things that mattered to Jesus - like people and their well-being? Why are they quiet while corporations and profits are put before people?

[Dunelm]

Unfortunately, mega-churches in this country have megaphones, and most of them are with the right-wingers. Evangelicals like Mr. Wallis have a hard time getting attention because they are the voice of reason. Media give attention to the extremists. I just cannot understand all the religious people who are against decent health care for all--and Jesus was a healer!

By the way, Mr. Wallis's books are not on the shelves of any mega-church in my city--just out of interest I checked. I blame some of these churches for having a part in the Bush phenomenon.

[vlm1948]

Totally agree.

[BocaMom]

The election was about money alright. The lack of it because of the fallen economy and 10% unemployment because of the do nothing Congress and White House. What do we have to show after one year? The economy stinks. Unemployment is almost 50% worse! We still haven't brought home our troops? Gay rights is all talk. And if they pass a health reform bill, it will probably not have a public option! What a joke! What a shame. We voted for change. And all we got was a change for the worse! I wish we could have elected Bill for a third term like Mayor Bloomberg. At least, he knew it was the economy, stupid!

[Carl Caroli]

"But that new politics will never exist if we simply wait for it to come from Washington; we must create it and help it grow by the social movements we build."
You're right, and the solution you propose sounds great, but it's not very specific. What am I to do? How do I, with all the disparate opinions, lies and mis-information people have, build a social movement. If there was a "none of the above (nota)" column in the voting booth, it may send the right message. If "nota" wins, vacate the office and leave it unfilled until the next election. That'd scare the poop out of the 2 miserable parties we have. Nothing is getting done anyway.

[enochsmoky]

Read Michael Barone's article in today's Wall St. Journal. The biggest losers in the recent elections are the nation's unions, especially public employee unions. Talk about "rejection of old politics" unions pushing politicians, governments and private managements around is the oldest politics in the nation. The union agenda is all about owning the Democratic party and using it to wring increased pay and benefits out of the 90% of us who aren't union members. It is such an blatant corruption of government that most people, especially liberals, are oblivious to it. The most highly unionized states in the country are the most corrupt, inefficient and debt ridden. Until the public empolyee union problem is corrected, this country will never fully recover. Unions are the definition of "old politics."

[bkca]

Yes, indeed..... the public employee unions' pension funds are the ticking time bomb that no politician has even mentioned. They are bankrupting the state of California, and will bankrupt this country..... and all the while, the unions cover their ears and scream for more, more, more...

[BBackSoon]

While I am not great supporter of the Political Aspects of Unions I do think they could and should serve a purpose. The problem with Unions just like any other political entity becomes about power collecting at the top.

We have seen Unions losing power and influence over the last 40 year and that coincidentally is the same period that we have seen average workers wages stagnate while Executive Compensations and Corporate Profits have gone thru the roof.

The current unions may not be the perfect solution but with NO Unions the Top simply keeps all the goodies and pay only crumbs.

The Elite at the top do not share unless they are forced to share.

[Viqueen2]

The only way to reduce the influence of big money in politics is to do 2 things: have public financing of all campaigns and term limits. Until these happen, nothing will change.

[Carl Caroli]

Throw in keeping lobbyists away from our politicians, and you got something.

[nofir2]

put a wall around K street and call it a prison. By the people for the people is not by the corp for the corp and if there were not a quid pro quo why would any corp pay a lobbyiest? The Laundry list grows longer how do we get the wash done is the question?

[pedernales]

I was was wondering when someone would shine a light on the fact that a significant minority of citizens are beyond sick of the corporate owned and operated two-party system and that these most recent electons reflect that. Both parties have a lock on Washington and have deflected any move toward publicly funded federal elections and the obvious need for a more open democracy, i.e., 3-4 viable parties and proportional representation. I believe that 20%-30% of citizens would probably vote for another party besides the present "if you don't get one then you get the other" gutter of lies and money.

[BBackSoon]

If you really want to see Bipartisanship, try to start a Viable National Third Party.

That would bring Repubs and Dems together faster than Congressional pay raises.

[MinuteMan]

When you consider that California, a fairly reliable Dem presidential state frequently elects Republican governors, it's hard to make much correlation between national elections and statewide elections. As Wallis points out, those attempting to make the relationship are those who feel that not only is DC the capital of the country, it *IS* the country.

The point made about the Obama electorate watching and waiting ought to be a huge concern to the Democrats for the upcoming 2010 elections. If they try to run on promises, which includes any legislation which does not take effect until years in the future, they will have zero credibility: they'll be viewed as just another set of politicians who will promise anything to get elected and can be counted on to deliver nothing.