After the Obama Win.

At some point in the evening, before all definitive results lit the electoral maps, television viewers across America understood that Barack Obama would be the 44th president and that Democrats would hold greater majorities in both the House and Senate. Now, the real work starts.

Sure, there were some surprises during the election. But it was no surprise that Republicans did poorly among African-Americans, whose surge of pride and participation was reminiscent of Catholics' embrace of John F. Kennedy. But with a poor performance among Hispanics, suburbanites and young adults, it is hard to see how Republicans can rebuild a national majority based only on older small-town and rural white voters.

Likewise, how can Republicans regain momentum with their current stances on immigration, the environment, and cultural issues? The party needs a period of self-examination and change akin to the Democrats' struggle to reinvent themselves in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The party's hearty embrace of Sarah Palin as its future champion does not bode well for its ability to change.

That Democrats now command a unified government for the first time since the catastrophic mid-term defeat of 1994 should flash strong warning signs to party leaders. The Clinton administration and congressional Democrats' failure to form an effective coalition around a common agenda led to a series of divisive votes -- on the budget, trade, and crime, among others -- and to the failure of the administration's ambitious health care initiative.

This time, the president-elect and congressional leaders have only a few weeks to make key decisions -- about overall spending levels, tax relief and legislative priorities -- before the new Obama administration submits its first budget. Much depends on their ability to coalesce around a set of promises that can be met before voters rethink in 2010. Tugging at their heels is the enormous burden of the financial rescue plan and a second stimulus package, which together may shoot the federal budget deficit to $1 trillion or beyond.

The battle of analogies will abound. Some Democrats will argue that 2009 is a lot like 1933, with an economic meltdown making the people eager for more government across the board. Others will say that it's more like 1965, when large Democratic majorities broke a decades-long logjam and enacted a broad progressive agenda. Still others will argue for an analogy with 1993, when the people rejected the status quo without quite endorsing the alternative to it, in a context of deep mistrust of government as an honorable and effective instrument of public purpose.

We can bring some data to bear on this dispute. According to a Pew Research Center survey released last week, 43 percent of Americans favor a bigger government offering more services versus 42 percent who favor a smaller government with fewer services. Support for smaller government is way down from its recent peak in the mid-1990s, and also from five years ago.

But support for larger government has not budged: 42 percent in November 2003, 43 percent in January 2007, 42 percent in November 2007 and 43 percent today. President Obama and congressional Democrats cannot assume that the rejection of conservative economics implies an endorsement of the liberal alternative.

On the critical issue of government's role, Democrats do not have a mandate. Rather, they have a chance to make their case. And they must do so at a time when public trust in government is at a historic low. This suggests that a step-by-step process of rebuilding public confidence in our governing institutions is likely to produce better, more sustainable results than would any effort to emulate Franklin D. Roosevelt or Lyndon B. Johnson.

Read more reaction from HuffPost bloggers to Barack Obama's victory in the 2008 presidential election

Comments

[mancityheel]

Trust in government is low, but there's no reason to think that a gradualist approach would be more effective than a larger, well-executed project of real significance. Modest steps are not going to catch the public's imagination and attention. Do something big. Do the Apollo Project green economy initiative in a big, big way.

[johnwinner]

The Demcratic Paty may now excersize th same privelage assigned o themselvs in 180, '84, '88, '94, 2000, 2004;
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAS A MADATE.
This is a 'center-left' nation, get used to it.

[blindjester]

"... 43 percent of Americans favor a bigger government offering more services versus 42 percent who favor a smaller government with fewer services."

It's only that close because they were asked about an ideological position, not a policy position. If you ask specific questions, the numbers are far different. People support universal health care, head start in schools, etc., in much greater percentages.

If you ask people if they support self-reliance, they'll say yes. But then most of them, seeing a neighbor stuck in the snow, will help push them out.

[Montanagramma]

If Bush had earned "Political Capital" and was eager to spend it, then Obama certainly has a "Mandate". Face it!

[littlebuddylouie]

George Bush had the gall to claim a mandate, in spite of being court appointed in the first place. He never had the kind of political capital that he thought he did. The Democrats are far closer to legitimate claims of a mandate than he ever was. Mandate or not, I agree that a President owes it to the American people to make his case for whatever he does, and I can't think of anyone better equipped to do that than Barack Obama.

[Pinkmarbles]

As a Business owner who employs 30 people, since Barack Obama will be our next President, I know that my Taxes and Fees will go up in a BIG way.

To compensate for these increases, I figure that our customers will
have to see an increase in my fees of about 8%. I will also have to lay
off six of my employees. This really bothered me as I believe we are
family here and didn't know how to choose who will have to go.
So, this is what I did.
I strolled thru the parking lot and found eight Obama
bumper stickers on my employees' cars. I have decided these folks will be the first to be laid off.

I can't think of more fair way to approach this problem. If you have a
better idea, let me know.

[johnwcowan]

If that's the way you treat your family, I'm sure glad I'm not one of your relatives.

[Pinkmarbles]

So what you are saying is that if your dad lost his job you would still demand your allowance. Typical e n ti tle ment mindset.

[MidwestMomma]

Why don't you tighten your own belt, like the rest of us. Cut your salary and perks and wait and see how much more taxes and fees you'll pay, if any! Unless you have a monopoly on what you you do, I think raising prices and lowering costs and service is going to lower your profits/ salary anyway.

So! do the right thing first! Seriously why would any one pay more for less!

[Pinkmarbles]

Oh gee, THAT never crossed my mind. And by the way my salary is THE LAST ONE PAID! And the only PERKS I have are a home that is paid for and a car. I do not have a monopoly on my product but I have already met others that make similar products and we are all in the same boat.

I don't think people understand what happens when businesses don't get the tax breaks that everyone says we should not get. We have no choice but to raise prices and or cut jobs. This is the main reason some of my competitors are already preparing to move most of the production jobs to Mexico.

[johnqeniac]

uhhh, we already have big government with a trillion dollar plus military. just transfer some of that to useful projects and we're there.

[Suzanne1]

You may wish to research the fact that many election analysts agree that an excess of 320 electoral votes defines a landslide, and thus, a mandate. This is further echoed by the Democratic wins in Congress.

[BillZBubb]

i cannot agree with your assessment. The public, at least the sane part, knows the government must be more actively and forcefully involved in the economy, particularly the financial arena. The right will call it big government intrusion, the sensible people will call it self-defense.

Most people are also ready for government action on health care. This is no time for the Democrats to be timid, they did win a mandate to govern in this election.

If Democrats really believe that their approach to governance is the best approach and that their policies will benefit the country, then they should implement whatever they can of their agenda. It doesn't matter what any survey says.

[Thevail]

Yeah..He..and Washington DO have a mandate.

What the heck do you think, CHANGE was about??
It means we are dissatisfied with the results of the Republican, right, conservative ideas.

Thay have been weighed, they have been measured..
and..
They have been found WANTING.

[tompoe]

There is no 100 day deadline. There is no big government issue. Day One, executive orders, whether three or five or fifteen, satisfies all criteria for those who need reassurance this administration is criminal, and the Obama administration is full of hope. Bush managed to crush the myth about the size of government being important. Please stop with the exploded myths as if they still exist. Oh, and you might lend some credibility by citing your "survey" sources.

[c64audio]

An election with hundreds of millions of votes cast outvotes a mere survey, no matter how attractively cherrypicked.