US Election post-mortem
If there was one word to describe the election two nights ago in the United States it was historic. While the fact the United States elected its first African-American president was undoubtedly the main reason many said it was historic, it was historic in many other ways too. And in fact it could possible turn out to be historic if this results in a political realignment much the way Roosevelt's victory in 1928 and Reagan's in 1980 did. 45 years ago, Martin Luther King Jr., had a dream that one day America would be a country where people would not be judged by their colour of their skin, but by the content of their character. And the results last night vindicate that for the most part (although not fully) this has happened. The reality is most Americans voted for who they thought would be the best president, not what his skin colour was. I supported Obama right from the beginning when few thought he even had a shot at winning the Democrat nomination and I supported him over Clinton and over McCain because I thought he had the best vision for the United States. I first saw him interviewed on Larry King about a year and a half ago and I when listening to his vision I was truly amazed. I was convinced this was someone who could do very good things if only he had a chance. I went on his website to check out his policies as some are great orators, but lousy politicians and sure enough I found many policies that I agreed with. I am a Blue Liberal myself so hardly some socialist and hard core lefty as some Republicans called Obama, but instead very much like a typical moderate voter even though I cannot vote in the US. I also saw in his senate race in Illinois how he not only won in Chicago where the Democrats usually pile up huge majorities, but won in the suburbs which lean Republican and the rural areas of Illinois which are solidly Republican. I figured if he could do this in Illinois, why not nationally and in many ways he did so. He not only picked up swing states like Florida, Ohio, New Mexico, Iowa, and Nevada, but picked up states few thought the Democrats could win 4 years ago. Colorado was seen as a real stretch while until the midterm elections, the idea of Virginia turning blue seemed impossible. But that wasn't it, he even won Indiana and North Carolina which a mere six months ago had someone told me those would be blue states, I would have said they were completely nuts. Clearly the idea of the Democrats being a bi-coastal party and only winning in the large cities is no longer the case. In many ways it is the Republicans who face the problem of not being a truly national party. Not only are the cities rejecting them, they are also losing in the suburbs and even rural areas are only narrowly voting Republican, not by the huge margins they use to win there. Also the fastest growing areas and the fastest growing demographics (Latinos, educated voters) are all turning away from the GOP. This doesn't mean the GOP is finished as a party. They still got 46% of the popular vote and can certainly come back much the way the Democrats did, but they will have to make major changes if that is to happen.
The loss for the GOP was partly over the unpopularity of the Bush administration, the economic meltdown and certainly Obama's outstanding campaign and strong appeal helped turn what should have been at least a narrow Democrat win into a Democrat landslide. However, there is another factor not talked about much here which I think happened. Whenever major shifts happen in the American political alignment, it is usually when one party shifts too far from the centre and loses touch with the average American voter. In the late 20s, the Republicans hands off approach to the economy and unwillingness to deal with the impending Great Depression led many to believe they were too right wing on economic policies so the Democrats were elected and remained the dominant party for many years to come. By the late 70s and early 80s, high taxes, excessive regulation, and excessive government intervention were all seen as not working. Reagan said government is not the solution, but the problem and this reasonated with many as despite the heavy levels of government intervention, the economy wasn't doing too well. In many ways the Democrats had swung too far to the left and they paid a price for this. Fast forward almost thirty years later and what looked like a permanent realignment in favour of the Republicans appears to have been shattered. During those thirty years, every victory the Republicans won only convinced the hard right elements that if they moved even further to the right they would win even bigger. This worked in the short-term, but it eventually blew up in their faces as the Republicans are simply too right wing for many in the US despite the fact the US is one of the most conservative countries in the Western world. The United States is still a centre-right country, but it is not a right wing country and that is where the Republicans messed up. Had they stayed a centre-right party rather than swinging hard to the right they probably wouldn't be in the mess they are today. If we look at the areas in each state Obama picked up that swung it in their favour (DC suburbs in Virginia, Denver suburbs in Colorado, I4 Corridor in Florida etc.) these are all moderate areas, not liberal, not conservative areas. Today the Democrats more or less occupy the centre while the Republicans don't anymore and I think that has a lot to do with the change that happened last night. Obama's policies of giving a tax cut to the middle class and lower income Americans as opposed to the very wealthy, using war as a last resort rather than first resort, and focusing on the economy rather than moral issues that pit community against community are all examples of him appealing the middle centrist voters. In fairness, McCain was initially a moderate, but his party had been hijacked by the hard right and if he wanted to keep the party united behind him, he really had no choice but to turn to the right. It was not just McCain/Palin that caused the results, it was the general rot within the Republican, the divisive tactics, and the ideological rigidity that hurt it.
Now that Obama has been elected, the tough part is going to be living up to expectations. Many people are very pleased he won and certainly globally, there is probably no day ever in history where America's image around the globe has changed so dramatically in 24 hours. But with high expectations, Obama will undoubtedly disappoint something. The important thing is that he moves the country in the right direction even if he doesn't get everything done. Also the good news for him is he won't face re-election until 2012 and his toughest decisions will likely come early in his mandate so although I expect his popularity to take a hit early on, Reagan and Clinton both faced the several problems after two years in power, yet both were handily re-elected. Also, the Democrats have a large enough lead in congress and the senate that it is unlikely the Republicans will regain control of either house in 2010 even if the Democrats do lose some seats, which will be a good thing for Obama. As for what direction he should take the country, I believe he stay as close to the middle as possible. The liberal areas of the US were already going Democrat to begin with, it was the moderate areas that put him over the top. Likewise the rejection of the Republicans was not people embracing liberalism, it was a rejection of neo-conservatism. Americans want a president who will unite people, not divide them, and who will govern based on what works not blind ideology. Drifting too far to the left would divide people and cause the same problems and governing by ideology be it left wing or right wing never works.
As for my predictions, it looks like I got two states wrong again (Indiana and North Carolina) so not bad in terms of my predictions and in both cases they were won by very narrow margins. Another interesting thing is the US for the first time ever had a higher voter turnout than Canada and while we had our lowest ever, they had their highest in over 100 years. Maybe this should give politicians an idea of what needs to be done to increase turnout. Likewise the Democrat gains in areas that seemed impossible 4 years ago shows the Liberals can rebound if they put their mind to it. In a span of four years, both countries have dramatically seen their political landscapes change, albeit in totally different directions. While the Conservatives have won many traditional Liberal strongholds and the Liberals are reduced to a shell of their former self, in the US the Democrats have won in many Republican strongholds who are reduced to a shell of their former self. This does not mean we are now a more right wing country. Harper got 38% while McCain got 46% so more still voted for parties on the right in the US than Canada and likewise 2/3 of conservative voters wanted Obama to win. But it certainly does mean in many areas are policies will be more conservative albeit the ability for any government to radically to change anything is difficult so we will still have tougher gun control laws and more public health care system than the US does despite having a more conservative government.
Since this is simply too much to discuss in one post, I will have more in the following days on how things shape up. The Democrats did gain in congress although it was not one sided like in 2006, but rather net gains and as expected, they lost seats in the South, but gained everywhere else. There are also still three senate senates that are uncalled including Minnesota which will be going to an automatic recount so a filibuster proof majority in the senate is possible but not likely.
The loss for the GOP was partly over the unpopularity of the Bush administration, the economic meltdown and certainly Obama's outstanding campaign and strong appeal helped turn what should have been at least a narrow Democrat win into a Democrat landslide. However, there is another factor not talked about much here which I think happened. Whenever major shifts happen in the American political alignment, it is usually when one party shifts too far from the centre and loses touch with the average American voter. In the late 20s, the Republicans hands off approach to the economy and unwillingness to deal with the impending Great Depression led many to believe they were too right wing on economic policies so the Democrats were elected and remained the dominant party for many years to come. By the late 70s and early 80s, high taxes, excessive regulation, and excessive government intervention were all seen as not working. Reagan said government is not the solution, but the problem and this reasonated with many as despite the heavy levels of government intervention, the economy wasn't doing too well. In many ways the Democrats had swung too far to the left and they paid a price for this. Fast forward almost thirty years later and what looked like a permanent realignment in favour of the Republicans appears to have been shattered. During those thirty years, every victory the Republicans won only convinced the hard right elements that if they moved even further to the right they would win even bigger. This worked in the short-term, but it eventually blew up in their faces as the Republicans are simply too right wing for many in the US despite the fact the US is one of the most conservative countries in the Western world. The United States is still a centre-right country, but it is not a right wing country and that is where the Republicans messed up. Had they stayed a centre-right party rather than swinging hard to the right they probably wouldn't be in the mess they are today. If we look at the areas in each state Obama picked up that swung it in their favour (DC suburbs in Virginia, Denver suburbs in Colorado, I4 Corridor in Florida etc.) these are all moderate areas, not liberal, not conservative areas. Today the Democrats more or less occupy the centre while the Republicans don't anymore and I think that has a lot to do with the change that happened last night. Obama's policies of giving a tax cut to the middle class and lower income Americans as opposed to the very wealthy, using war as a last resort rather than first resort, and focusing on the economy rather than moral issues that pit community against community are all examples of him appealing the middle centrist voters. In fairness, McCain was initially a moderate, but his party had been hijacked by the hard right and if he wanted to keep the party united behind him, he really had no choice but to turn to the right. It was not just McCain/Palin that caused the results, it was the general rot within the Republican, the divisive tactics, and the ideological rigidity that hurt it.
Now that Obama has been elected, the tough part is going to be living up to expectations. Many people are very pleased he won and certainly globally, there is probably no day ever in history where America's image around the globe has changed so dramatically in 24 hours. But with high expectations, Obama will undoubtedly disappoint something. The important thing is that he moves the country in the right direction even if he doesn't get everything done. Also the good news for him is he won't face re-election until 2012 and his toughest decisions will likely come early in his mandate so although I expect his popularity to take a hit early on, Reagan and Clinton both faced the several problems after two years in power, yet both were handily re-elected. Also, the Democrats have a large enough lead in congress and the senate that it is unlikely the Republicans will regain control of either house in 2010 even if the Democrats do lose some seats, which will be a good thing for Obama. As for what direction he should take the country, I believe he stay as close to the middle as possible. The liberal areas of the US were already going Democrat to begin with, it was the moderate areas that put him over the top. Likewise the rejection of the Republicans was not people embracing liberalism, it was a rejection of neo-conservatism. Americans want a president who will unite people, not divide them, and who will govern based on what works not blind ideology. Drifting too far to the left would divide people and cause the same problems and governing by ideology be it left wing or right wing never works.
As for my predictions, it looks like I got two states wrong again (Indiana and North Carolina) so not bad in terms of my predictions and in both cases they were won by very narrow margins. Another interesting thing is the US for the first time ever had a higher voter turnout than Canada and while we had our lowest ever, they had their highest in over 100 years. Maybe this should give politicians an idea of what needs to be done to increase turnout. Likewise the Democrat gains in areas that seemed impossible 4 years ago shows the Liberals can rebound if they put their mind to it. In a span of four years, both countries have dramatically seen their political landscapes change, albeit in totally different directions. While the Conservatives have won many traditional Liberal strongholds and the Liberals are reduced to a shell of their former self, in the US the Democrats have won in many Republican strongholds who are reduced to a shell of their former self. This does not mean we are now a more right wing country. Harper got 38% while McCain got 46% so more still voted for parties on the right in the US than Canada and likewise 2/3 of conservative voters wanted Obama to win. But it certainly does mean in many areas are policies will be more conservative albeit the ability for any government to radically to change anything is difficult so we will still have tougher gun control laws and more public health care system than the US does despite having a more conservative government.
Since this is simply too much to discuss in one post, I will have more in the following days on how things shape up. The Democrats did gain in congress although it was not one sided like in 2006, but rather net gains and as expected, they lost seats in the South, but gained everywhere else. There are also still three senate senates that are uncalled including Minnesota which will be going to an automatic recount so a filibuster proof majority in the senate is possible but not likely.
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight at 6:41 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home