Why the Democrats lost, what it means, and why Obama hasn't visited Bangladesh

by Seth Mandel
November 10, 2010

http://www.weeklyblitz.net/1081/why-the-democrats-lost-what-it-means-and-why

"Historic." That is the word most commonly used to describe the Republican victories in the midterm congressional elections. But what does it actually mean, in practical terms?

First, let's review what happened. Republicans picked up at least 60 seats in the House of Representatives and are poised to pick up a few more, which could bring their total to 64 if they win the races they still lead but of which they are yet to be declared the winner. This means the Democrats went from the majority¾by 77 seats¾to the minority.

In the Senate, Democrats lost their filibuster-proof majority, but retained an overall majority, 53-47 (the Republicans gained six seats).

This raises two questions: Why did this happen, and what will it change.

Why did this happen?

President Barack Obama won the 2008 presidential election under the banner of "Change." It was vague, but it capitalized on the national mood of discontent with the leadership of the Republican Party, specifically George W. Bush. Two wars wearied the public; a financial mess added anxiety to the mix. The Republicans had already lost control of Congress¾that happened in Bush's second midterms in 2006. Americans were ready to give the White House to the Democrats too.

Obama was praised widely for running a shrewd campaign. His finger was firmly on the pulse of the nation; he knew what to say, how to relate to the public, and how to frame the debate in a way that made him pretty much a shoo-in by the time Election Day rolled around. The country was ready for Obama's leadership.

But what if he didn't read the electorate as accurately as everyone thought he did. What if the conventional wisdom was wrong? And what if, rather than moderate, steady leadership, the new president was actually going to throw a sharp curve at an already motion-sick country?

There was evidence early on that this might, unfortunately, be the case. "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste," Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, told a conference after the election. What he meant is that a crisis is the only time a deliberate, center-right republic like the United States would enact far-reaching changes. The new White House, with an almost ironclad majority control of both houses of Congress, wanted to upend the entire health care industry and bring it under the purview of the federal government.

But the crisis was financial¾health care was low on the list of priorities of the general public. No matter; Obama would sell health care reform as somehow the antidote to the poisonous state of fiscal affairs.

And immediately the backlash ensued. Democratic representatives in both the House and Senate were flooded with phone calls: Don't pass this bill. Town hall events across the country were standing-room-only, filled with Americans¾Democratic, Republican, independent¾loudly sending one message to their congressional representatives: Don't pass this bill. Polls were taken around the country to measure support for the health care overhaul; their results amounted to the following piece of advice for Congress: Don't pass this bill.

Yet after bribing some elected officials for their votes and using procedural loopholes to shove it through, Democrats passed the bill.

The health care overhaul isn't the only reason the Democrats lost by such margins in the midterm elections. But it is indicative of the main reason they lost: The Democrats, drunk with power, ignored the will of the voters, plain and simple. And they were punished by the electorate, which voted overwhelmingly for the party that addressed the most pressing issues in their minds: government overspending, deficit reduction, and federal intrusion into the private sector.

In addition, the electorate is more conservative than Democrats wanted to believe. William Galston, writing in The New Republic, a left-liberal magazine, broke this news to his liberal readers. The breakdown of the voters does not support a shift in voter mobilization, partisan polarization, or voter age, he writes. It is the ideological makeup of independents that gravitated more to the conservative side, as part of a continuing trend.

"But why did they change? Here we reach the nub of the matter: The ideological composition of the electorate shifted dramatically. In 2006, those who voted were 32 percent conservative, 47 percent moderate, and 20 percent liberal," Galston writes. "In 2010, by contrast, conservatives had risen to 41 percent of the total and moderates declined to 39 percent, while liberals remained constant at 20 percent. And because, in today's polarized politics, liberals vote almost exclusively for Democrats and conservatives for Republicans, the ideological shift matters a lot."

The electorate on the whole is trending more conservative, and the Obama administration either ignored or misread this. The country's voters issued a corrective.

One suggestion we can put to rest, finally, is the issue of race. Since not only did Republicans elect black and Hispanic candidates, but the tea party candidates themselves featured black, Hispanic, Vietnamese, and other minority candidates. Obama's race had absolutely nothing to do with the voters' rejection of his agenda.

What will it change?

This is a more difficult question to answer, but first and foremost it will change the spending priorities of the Congress. The House will forward budgets intended to cut spending and force Obama to either pass them or veto them, risking further alienating voters.

On health care, of course, the Republicans will not be able to repeal the bill¾yet¾because they would need a veto-proof majority in Congress, something they don't have now and are unlikely to get. That means they will attack the health care bill in other ways. Now that the House is in GOP hands, the Republicans hold the purse strings. Because of this, they can choose to fund¾or defund¾several parts of the bill.

As laid out in a recent article in the New York Times, Republicans can forward spending bills that block insurance regulations they oppose. They can withhold funding from federal agencies earmarked to enforce elements of Obamacare, such as the individual insurance mandate which forces everyone to buy a government-approved insurance plan or face penalties. They may also attempt to prevent the utilization of taxpayer-funded plans that cover abortion.

Blocking funding to various facets of the health care plan to prevent full implementation is the most realistic way Republicans in the House can blunt Obamacare. It may sound like a secondary option, but new GOP Speaker of the House John Boehner insists there are a plethora of ways the Republicans "can dent this, kick it, slow it down to make sure it never happens. And trust me, I'm going to make sure this health-care bill never, ever, ever is implemented," as he told Fox News.

As I discussed in a recent article for the Blitz, Republican control of the purse strings can force the president to focus more on foreign policy. Obama is currently on a trip through Asia, which includes a trip to India. Curiously, Obama seems to be snubbing Bangladesh. When I called the White House and reached out to the National Security Council to find out why, there was no answer.

We're left to speculate, but it seems that the reason is exactly what we suspected a couple weeks ago. Obama's trip is taking him to U.S. allies he has thus far neglected, and whose support he needs to shore up. Bangladesh is not yet far enough along on the freedom or democracy scale to burnish Obama's image. Right now he needs to be seen in the best light possible, and be able to defend himself against any criticism from conservatives.

For example, during his trip Obama proclaimed that India should be able to join the U.N. Security Council as a permanent member. Just before the weekend, GOP foreign policy hawk Sen. John McCain made the same suggestion.

This is all to be expected. When Obama seems to lack friends at home, expect him to look for them in familiar places abroad. In the meantime, unless Bangladesh can prove its political usefulness to Obama, it won't receive an official state visit anytime soon.

Seth Mandel is US Correspondent of Weekly Blitz

Related Topics:  Bangladesh News receive the latest by email: subscribe to weekly blitz's free mailing list