As we head into the midterms it is increasingly clear that there will be no winners on election night given the massive discontent of the electorate almost across the board. Even if the Republicans have a good night, it will not be an endorsement of the Tea Party any more than 2008 was an endorsement of the progressive left. It will be another cycle in the game of ping pong being played out by an increasingly non-partisan, centrist electorate given too little choice -- or, worse yet, given false choices.
The problem is that the successful strategies of the two wings of the parties, particularly as the parties have been shrinking, have driven both parties closer to the extremes. Think about the math of it -- if the Republican Party is, say, 26% of the country and the most conservative elements of the party are 14%, then 14% can end up governing not just a minority party but the entire country.
At the root of the discontent is the desire to have practical, not ideological, solutions to intractable problems. In most cases, the voters oppose single-sided solutions that entirely reject one party's ideas, and favor instead approaches that combine the best of each platform. No, not soft, watered down approaches, but strong, comprehensive solutions such as we've seen in the past with the balanced budget accord and Welfare reform.
When it comes to the economy, the voters want a return to solid economic growth. If China can grow why can't the United States? So they favored stimulus when we needed it but oppose tax increases, and want to see more markets open to American goods, more investment in innovation. A comprehensive economic strategy in the 21st century has to have more than just tax and spend at its core -- it needs the kinds of investments and opening of markets that promote winning a fair share of the expanding global economic pie.
Of course they believe all Americans should have access to quality affordable healthcare. But voters also think that the government has to be kept out of healthcare decisions and that costs have to be controlled, starting with malpractice.
And as polls show they favor a toughening of the immigration laws, but also believe that we need a fair resolution of the problems of the millions of people already here.
Waiting for 'Superman' is touching a nerve when it comes to educational reform. The electorate believes teachers should be paid well -- but also they think they should be judged in the workplace just like everyone else is -- and want to see us as a country be more open to more radical educational reform.
They want smaller government, but they also want an activist government that is looking out for them and their children when they get in a car, use a bank or eat a hamburger. They want small business (and business in general) to flourish, but not without the regulations and appropriate mandates (like the epa mileage standards) that keep them safe and move the country in the right direction.
And working to protect our environment is not an on/off switch. Voters reject radical solutions that would restrict economic growth and add huge new taxes but they favor tough environmental regulations, incentives to find new forms of energy, and a national commitment to new green industries.
In fact, spinning out the list of things that the voters want that combine the best of what Democrats and Republicans offer is easy - and around election time this list seems to appear on virtually every presidential candidate's website.
But once in office it seems to disappear. The 1994 to 2000 period is the last period of bipartisan action and high voter satisfaction with the system, coming off a low point in the 1994 midterms. It wasn't perfect, but over 20 million jobs were created while tough problems like the budget deficit and welfare were tackled head on.
The Republicans are set to crow on election day -- but the results will really be more of a reflection of dissatisfaction with the administration, and the perception that it has failed to govern as promised, than an endorsement of all their policies. As with 2008, it will be a call for greater balance and the post-election period will afford our country's leaders a time to assess what this electorate is seeking from government. If, after the returns are in, the administration and the Republicans recognize these results as a warning shot to both parties and roll up their sleeves to produce the same kinds of action we saw after 1994, then there will be a winner -- the voters.
The "perception" that it has failed to govern as promised? No, sir, the reality. There was no transparency in the HC Debate, there were backroom deals and smoke filled rooms. The people were not allowed to see the negotiations on C-Span, as promised, just a dog and pony show for a couple hours. The people did not get the bi-partisanship Obama promised, he didn;t even let one Republican Amendment into the Bill. The people did not get the ceiling of 8% Unemployment that Obama promised iwth his Stimulus. The people did not get shutting down of Gitmo (though I disagreed at the time with this) that Obama promised. These are not "perceptions" of failed promises, they are realities.
Single payer had 60% support; public option 70%;
Americans favored aggressive regulation of tax cuts;
they favored repeal of the tax cuts for the richest Americans;
they favored action on climate change;
they favor subsidies for renewable energy and energy efficiency;
they favor taxing hedge funds, derivatives and capital gains;
they oppose changes to social security, medicare and medicaid;
On and on it goes.
So why don't they think of themselves as progressive?
Simple. You can't win a horse race without a horse.
People like you (and Axelrod and Emanuel) have been running from progressivism for so long, it has no identity.
How can anyone say this with a straight face? Both parties have been trending together towards ONE political extreme -- the RIGHT-WING extreme -- for decades now.
Look at President Nixon. That REPUBLICAN President increased Social Security and Medicare benefits, boosted unemployment benefits, supported a government jobs program, and briefly imposed wage and price controls on the entire American economy.
Today's Democrats would proudly and publicly declare all of that to be FAR too radical. They say the same thing about the comparatively modest measures proposed by modern American progressives. Democrats are RIGHT-WING LITE.
Great.
Not the American public, that is for sure!
Most people think that the federal govt should do more to ensure product safety and protect the environment
Most people think that the federal govt has too much control over the economy,
Most people think that more federal power should be transferred to state and local govt
Most people think their state and local governments are incompetent.
Most people think that citizens rather than government should play a bigger role in solving our problems.
Most people distrust their neighbors to help them out when they need them.
Most people turn to government to solve problems when they arise.
Most people make political decisions based on conflicting logic, misinformation, and a superficial grasp of reality.
Elections have nothing to do with preferences for a coherent political ideology and everything to do with the manipulation of a confused public.
It's convenient and facile to say, "oh, it's both sides". But it's lazy at best, deliberately misleading at worst. It's like a news program with a scientist on explaining why the sky is blue, and someone else saying, no it's red... and the moderator concluding, "well, there's a difference of opinion on this issue. We'll be back after this." All statements are not created equal: there is such a thing as verifiable truth. Smoking does cause cancer, no matter what teams of pseudo scientists said for years. CO2 is changing the climate. Offshore oil drilling is horribly risky (someone want to debate me on that?). And, here, both sides have not equally been pursuing bipartisanship -- which by it's very definition requires two participating, engaged, compromising players.
The writer's correct, certainly, that there are activist wings of both parties pulling them in opposite directions. The difference is that the activist wing on the right is running their show, not just policy-wise, but politically. Whereas on the left, there's more of a real-politik acceptance that politics is the art of compromise, and the lesser-of-two-evils is still an improvement over the alternative. (1of2)
Btw, how long did your side blame Bill Clinton for just about everything? For the entire first term of the shrub's tenure and then halfway through the 2nd is what I remember.
-snip-
“This is a hard decision for me personally because, frankly, I don’t like him. I feel like he is an elitist. I feel like he has not given me reason to trust him.” –Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild
-snip-
http://millercenter.org/scripps/archive/speeches/detail/3305
There is a mysterious cycle in human events. To some generations much is given. Of other generations much is expected. This generation of Americans has a rendezvous with destiny.
In this world of ours in other lands, there are some people, who, in times past, have lived and fought for freedom, and seem to have grown too weary to carry on the fight. They have sold their heritage of freedom for the illusion of a living. They have yielded their democracy.
I believe in my heart that only our success can stir their ancient hope. They begin to know that here in America we are waging a great and successful war. It is not alone a war against want and destitution and economic demoralization. It is more than that; it is a war for the survival of democracy. We are fighting to save a great and precious form of government for ourselves and for the world.
-snip-