Dr. K. makes a good point that both the Republican wave of 2010 and the Democratic waves of 2006 of 2008 had a lot to do with the governing party (in the White House) misjudging its mandate. Republicans in the previous years had acted like Democrats Lite, and the Obama White House acted like a European Socialist government (which the public clearly did not like). As far as the GOP having a “mandate” – Dr.K. points out that they were rewarded for being a proxy “‘no” on the Obama administration – the same thing that the Democrats were when the public wanted to show its disapproval of Bush. The natural order of things seems to be divided government. What bodes well for the Republican Party is that Obama still does not seem to understand what happened to him.
by Charles Krauthammer
For all the turmoil, the spectacle, the churning – for all the old bulls slain and fuzzy-cheeked freshmen born – the great Republican wave of 2010 is simply a return to the norm. The tide had gone out; the tide came back. A center-right country restores the normal congressional map: a sea of interior red, bordered by blue coasts and dotted by blue islands of ethnic/urban density.
Or to put it numerically, the Republican wave of 2010 did little more than undo the two-stage Democratic wave of 2006-2008 in which the Democrats gained 54 House seats combined (precisely the size of the anti-Democratic wave of 1994). In 2010 the Democrats gave it all back, plus about an extra 10 seats or so for good – chastening – measure.
The conventional wisdom is that these sweeps represent something novel, exotic and very modern – the new media, faster news cycles, Internet frenzy and a public with a short attention span and even less patience with government. Or alternatively, that these violent swings reflect reduced party loyalty and more independent voters.
Nonsense. In 1946, for example, when party loyalty was much stronger and even television was largely unknown, the Republicans gained 56 seats and then lost 75 in the very next election. Waves come. Waves go. The republic endures.
Our two most recent swing cycles were triggered by unusually jarring historical events. The 2006 Republican “thumpin'” (to quote George W. Bush) was largely a reflection of the disillusionment and near-despair of a wearying war that appeared to be lost. And 2008 occurred just weeks after the worst financial collapse in eight decades.
Similarly, the massive Republican swing of 2010 was a reaction to another rather unprecedented development – a ruling party spectacularly misjudging its mandate and taking an unwilling country through a two-year experiment in hyper-liberalism.
A massive government restructuring of the health-care system. An $800 billion-plus stimulus that did not halt the rise in unemployment. And a cap-and-trade regime reviled outside the bicoastal liberal enclaves that luxuriate in environmental righteousness – so reviled that the Democratic senatorial candidate in West Virginia literally put a bullet through the bill in his own TV ad. He won. Handily.
[…]
Tuesday was the electorate’s first opportunity to render a national verdict on this manner of governance. The rejection was stunning. As a result, President Obama’s agenda is dead. And not just now. No future Democratic president will try to revive it – and if he does, no Congress will follow him, in view of the carnage visited upon Democrats on Tuesday.
This is not, however, a rejection of Democrats as a party. The center-left party as represented by Bill Clinton remains competitive in every cycle. (Which is why he was the most popular, sought-after Democrat in the current cycle.) The lesson of Tuesday is that the American game is played between the 40-yard lines. So long as Democrats don’t repeat Obama’s drive for the red zone, Democrats will cyclically prevail, just as Republicans do.
Nor should Republicans overinterpret their Tuesday mandate. They received none. They were merely rewarded for acting as the people’s proxy in saying no to Obama’s overreaching liberalism. As one wag put it, this wasn’t an election so much as a restraining order.
[…]
Read the rest here: A Return to the Norm
Jonah Goldberg notes the continuing arrogance (and lack of class) of most of the more far Left Democrats (like Barney Frank and Jim Moran) who seem to feel that it is an affront to them to have have a serious opponent. He also does not place much faith in Barack Obama interpreting the will of the voters.
by Jonah Goldberg
In 2007, when police busted Rep. Barney Frank’s partner for illegally growing pot, Frank waved away the controversy by saying he hadn’t noticed since he’s “not a great outdoorsman” and has trouble recognizing any plants.
Twenty years earlier, Frank endured another controversy when his one-time partner, personal aide and roommate was revealed to be running a prostitution service out of Frank’s home. The Massachusetts congressmen insisted he hadn’t noticed anything amiss until informed by his landlord.
And when Frank helped fuel a housing bubble that nearly crippled the economy for a generation, he again failed to notice anything was awry until it was obvious for all to see.
While lesser men, perhaps those not dubbed the “brainiest” man on Capitol Hill by congressional staffers, might worry about accountability, Frank considers it an affront, given his personal and professional record. In short, Frank has a very solid record of obliviousness, denial and entitlement.
Watch his remarks from election night on YouTube, if you missed the spittle-flecked invective live. It’s a rare specimen: an angry victory speech. He seems simply aggrieved that he was forced to take a race seriously. Indeed, he was aggrieved that Republicans refused to get off the mat. “The collective campaigns that were run by most Republicans were beneath the dignity of a democracy,” he huffed, as if he’s a particularly respected arbiter of democratic dignity.
Frank was hardly alone in the sore-winner caucus. Democratic Rep. Jim Moran of Virginia refused to accept a congratulatory concession call from his opponent.
[…]
And just like before the election, Obama’s self-exonerating narrative is simply wrong. His agenda was never back-burnered for emergency measures. If anything, emergency measures were back-bunered for his agenda. In the summer of 2009, he pushed health care reform while his aides swore he’d eventually get around to “pivoting” to jobs. Government spending seemed to go up and get more intrusive because it did go up and did get more intrusive. Government spending went up 23 percent in two years.
[…]
Read the rest here: Defeat, then Denial
