Crushed. Defeated. Their governing resoundingly rejected. Where do the Democrats go from here? Will they be out of a power for ten or more years, as some pundits are predicting, or will this simply be a brief setback for liberals? Well that all depends on how well Dems learn from their mistakes, how they act out of power in the minority, and what the Republicans do in the meantime. I am sure many Democrats are united in the hope that the Republicans self destruct over the coming twenty four months.
There isn't really a great deal the Democrats themselves can do, other than just hope. They have to choose their battles wisely, and offer constructive opposition to Republican policies, particularly those social ones which could disrupt the fabrics of communities in the US.
As for the GOP, they may be back in power, but they don't really know what to do with it. OK, so that may be a little bit of an exaggeration: they are probably itching to get back to law-making, just not in the constructive sense. But they don't really have any plans. They did relatively little policy wise in order to be returned to power; they just got kind of lucky. In that sense, they have no real plans for what do with their victory. Rhetoric of the campaign was all about what they didn't like, what they would repeal, what they would set right. Easy to say in opposition, but they never offered any solid ways of achieving all of this. Democrats have the wrong answers, perhaps. But Republicans have no answers, as Ron Johnson proved. How they got elected I do not know. Voters would do well to heed Eleanor Roosevelt's words- "The best thing you can do is the right thing. The next best thing is to do the wrong thing. The worst thing is to do nothing."
I get the feeling that some are already wondering why they voted as they did... Buyer's remorse.
Republicans have criticised Dem policies on the economy and healthcare, and watched Democrats struggle over spending and deficits. Again, easy to do in opposition, but now that they have won, it's the Republicans who are in charge. On a national scale, there will no doubt be excuses that they couldn't do anything effective because Democrats still controlled the Senate, and Obama is in the White House. But in Wisconsin, having being swept to victory in all elected offices, Republicans have no such excuse.
So Republicans have the reins once again. Democrats are forced to take a back seat, without any real chance of legislating. Indeed, Congressional Republicans have consistently stated that their will be "no compromise" with Democrats, none whatsoever. Some Republicans are aware of the fickle nature of the electorate, and know that despite their numbers, they didn't "win" re-election based on their merits; they are keen to focus on the economy. However, given time, they too may relax and take advantage of their majorities, and hopefully step too far.
Though it seems strange, we should perhaps be thankful that Republicans weren't out of power for too long a period, for they didn't have much time to argue over their defeat, nor analyse what went wrong. Most Republicans therefore, towing the party line, are offering the same policies now as they did in the Bush Era. Hopefully they will make the same mistakes. Despite the "Tea Party" movement within the GOP, and the recent calls to ban all earmarks for States, Republican strategist Karl Rove has already begun to reach out to Tea Partiers, and incorporate and unify them under the same old Bush policies- talk of controlling the economy and reducing spending and deficits, but in actual fact offering lower taxes, less regulation and zero reduction in spending. Even basic level math will tell you this equals a bigger deficit.
This reminds me of a great BBC article I read, which actually made me grateful for Cameron and the Tories. Our conservatives are much more moderate, and much less keen on repealing the measures of past governments. Conserving in actual fact. And despite the pain, they are keeping taxes high and reducing spending in order to try and control the debt.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11759960There is an argument to be made that Republicans will overstretch because as they are adopting policies of the past, they are also being driven further and further to the right, often into the realms of extremism. Moderates on both sides of the aisle were defeated by more extremist candidates, particularly on the Republican side, where a number of moderates lost primary elections to right winger tea party candidates. Thus, as the political centre is disappearing, no compromise seems much more likely, and gridlock becomes the most likely of outcomes. With extremists in control, Republicans will hopefully try and pass extreme legislation, such as those relating to social issues like abortion, gay rights, healthcare and stem cell research.
While the political centre may be disappearing, that also means that moderate, centrist voters are up for grabs, and that is where the Democrats should focus their attention. Left wing liberals will vote for Democrats. Always. Independent voters in the middle however should be courted and convinced that the Democrats offer the best policies and the best plans for the future.
Sweeping election flips the political spectrum? Talk of stalemate in the country and extremist policies? Sound familiar? A young, intelligent, elite President humiliated, disliked by average American folks, as Republicans out-communicate a great orator, and the new House Speaker stands proud over his victory. He describes the turn of states from blue to red as "the American people saying enough." "American people are clearly fed up with what they see as the decay of American society...(Democrats) had an enormous opportunity to bring about change and they failed...they thought the country didn't get it, and that it was their job to give them the government they needed, even if they didn't want it. That was the whole history of the health plan"
Talking about Obamacare? No, talking about Hillarycare. That was new House Speaker Newt Gingrich in 1994, after the Republican tidal wave that year. Could have been straight from this year. While Obama may not be Bill Clinton, he could certainly follow a similar path, and will hopefully bounce back from this defeat. The future may not always play out like the past, but it can give us some indication as to which way to turn. Check out
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/03/opinion/03dowd.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&ref=maureendowd&adxnnlx=1290143430-/A35aFAT3FiNpZ3rKowRAg for more.
As for Wisconsin, it will certainly continue to be an electoral battleground, and the swing state it has always been. Fighting Bob La Follette, a progressive, independent, extremely effective Senator and a champion of civil rights, was beaten by extremist Joe McCarthy in 1946. A few years later however progressives were back with another genuinely independent Senator, Gaylord Nelson. Another defeat, and a few years later another progressive independent- Russ Feingold. Again defeated by a private interest Republican. See a pattern? Progressives, Democrats, great Senators, will rise again. Wisconsin will be blue once more.
"History is a gallery of pictures in which there are few originals and many copies" Alexis De Tocqueville
Monday, November 29, 2010 at 5:00AM