Voters are drawn to candidates that like them. The inability to communicate that affection and fashion such bonds derailed the ultimate political ambitions of Dukakis, Kerry, Gore, Stevenson and Goldwater (probably Dole to a lesser extent). Cold indifference to the people short-circuited the legacy oriented aspirations of Johnson and Nixon.
President Obama succeeded in forging such bonds with the voters during the campaign. Like Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton he sold an appealing message. He encouraged voters to be part of something historic, to validate their desire to contribute through politics and to make a difference. Kennedy and Reagan thought highly of America and Americans and valued and encouraged the contributions of the electorate. Clinton probably viewed electoral politics largely as a referendum on his person, but he clearly viewed government as a vehicle for good.
What happened between Obama and the voters? His supporters seem more handcuffed to Obama than hand-holding. The phenomenon is hard to explain, like the Hollywood marriages that last seven months. How much can go wrong in seven months or in twenty-one months? Not that much really. Obamacare, the stimulus, the deficit and the tax policy proposals are problems, but hardly insurmountable for liberals to reconcile. The erosion of support for the president is more personal than political. Like the seven month marriages, the cracks trace back to the courtship.
Obama's America is country of villains that needs a sheriff to police it. America is Tombstone and he is Wyatt Earp. The Obama supporters have come to see their contribution was limited to putting the sheriff in office. During the courtship, it was nice that you all hated the same folks. But now it seems, that he never really liked your sister either. He doesn't find much appealing about the neighbors or your boss and as it turns out, he is not being well-served by some of his supporters either. It just might turn out that your most appealing virtue was your admiration for him.
We have only tried to divorce presidents twice mid-term. We almost always take our differences up with their colleagues. That is what is occurring now. The policy discussions that were so unceremoniously side-stepped in the past two years are taking place there.
But the problem for Obama and for us doesn't abate with a Republican sweep. Chances are the partisan divide opens like the Grand Canyon. The last two years of the Obama presidency will be an endless series of vetoes. The president's recent comment that "the Republicans are welcome to ride the bus but they will have to sit in the back" is not too encouraging. Next year, Republicans may be driving the bus. All the president will be able to do is issue a rhetorical ticket.
I wrote in "America's assistant principal" that president doesn't seem to like many of us; his job would be easier if he did. There is no denying the president's political skill. If this election is going to produce more than an uncomfortable two year impasse, the president will have to put those skills to good use.
President Obama should smooth things over with the ruffled in his own party first. But he needs to reach out to the business community, the Tea Party types, the pro-life folks, Fox News, those with illegal immigration concerns and the apolitical. America is not a problem to be solved. Barack Obama has the skills to be a leader and leadership is needed now. The jury is still out on whether he will.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Voters ponder "Will you still love me tomorrow?"
Friday, October 15, 2010
John Boehner leaves me cold
John Boehner gave us an unfortunate look into the Republican revolution when he said it was "too early" to talk specifics regarding spending cuts. Sounds a bit like "you'll have to pass the bill to find out what's in it." In a year when Republican are running against Executive arrogance and 'Chicago-style politics,' Boehner's remarks constitute seriously competitive arrogance.
The hostility toward Washington evidenced in the polls, in the reluctance to invest or hire and in the Tea Party movement will no doubt sweep Republicans into the House majority. The Tea Party phenomenon will benefit the Republican electoral effort. Boehner is making a mistake if he reads the Tea Party folks as either patient or loyal. Their short term bet is on the Republican horse. But they won't ride that horse twice if he doesn't dial that attitude back a piece.
Voters have been angry before. The Perot movement in 1992 garnered 19 million votes in the general election. Perot received over 20 percent of the vote in 25 states, over 25 percent in 10 states.
In 1968 George Wallace carried five Southern states and garnered some 46 electoral votes. In states that he didn't win, he received 28.5 percent of the total in Florida,31.3 percent in North Carolina and 34 percent in Tennessee. Neither effort was really a serious pursuit of the office.
In the end, the Wallace voters were merely afforded a chance to vote against Humphrey without voting for Nixon. The Perot voters were able to vote against Bush without voting for Clinton.
People no longer remember that Eugene McCarthy was the leading vote-getter in the Democratic primaries in 1968 although he did not come close to getting the nomination.
What did we learn from history? We learned that 20 percent of the voters are prepared to go outside the Democrat and Republican parties to vote for president. We learned that demographic appeals can potentially unearth electoral votes and most importantly, in McCarthy’s case, that a party can be dragged reluctantly toward the sentiments of the grassroots.
Frankly, Perot, Wallace and McCarthy were hardly charismatic or visionary individuals. They were one-trick ponies and not exactly models of ethics or towers of emotional stability. What happens if the anger attaches itself to a more solid person, a Mike Pence or a Condi Rice or a Bill Bennett. What happens if a Paul Tsongas-type Democrat doesn't want to wait until 2016?
The most interesting distinction between the Tea Party movement and the followers of the aforementioned is that this attention is directed at the Congress, especially at the House where the spending originates. That tells me that the disenchanted may be in it for the long haul.
Will the Tea Party be around as a third party alternative in four years? Probably not. If it survives as an ideological movement, it may enable the birth of a credible third party or support the election prospects of Libertarian-leaning and Independent candidates both in and outside the main parties. It can continue to cull the ranks of Democrat and Republican candidates who disdain the voter's wishes. They will remain a potent force in national politics if they remain ‘beholden to no one.
This much is certain. The blinding loyalty of the Tea Party supporters to Republicans in this election cycle is simply a 'no other card to play' phenomenon. The Democrats clearly don't want to be contaminated by associating with the Tea Party types. If Boehner and his ilk cannot talk the details of entitlement reform and real spending cuts now, the day is never coming.
Just trust me and we’ll get into the details after the election. This is a bad play for Republicans. If you can’t be brave campaigning, why should voters expect you to be brave governing. For all their many flaws, Perot, Wallace and McCarthy were brave campaigners. In another lifetime, we called that honesty.
The hostility toward Washington evidenced in the polls, in the reluctance to invest or hire and in the Tea Party movement will no doubt sweep Republicans into the House majority. The Tea Party phenomenon will benefit the Republican electoral effort. Boehner is making a mistake if he reads the Tea Party folks as either patient or loyal. Their short term bet is on the Republican horse. But they won't ride that horse twice if he doesn't dial that attitude back a piece.
Voters have been angry before. The Perot movement in 1992 garnered 19 million votes in the general election. Perot received over 20 percent of the vote in 25 states, over 25 percent in 10 states.
In 1968 George Wallace carried five Southern states and garnered some 46 electoral votes. In states that he didn't win, he received 28.5 percent of the total in Florida,31.3 percent in North Carolina and 34 percent in Tennessee. Neither effort was really a serious pursuit of the office.
In the end, the Wallace voters were merely afforded a chance to vote against Humphrey without voting for Nixon. The Perot voters were able to vote against Bush without voting for Clinton.
People no longer remember that Eugene McCarthy was the leading vote-getter in the Democratic primaries in 1968 although he did not come close to getting the nomination.
What did we learn from history? We learned that 20 percent of the voters are prepared to go outside the Democrat and Republican parties to vote for president. We learned that demographic appeals can potentially unearth electoral votes and most importantly, in McCarthy’s case, that a party can be dragged reluctantly toward the sentiments of the grassroots.
Frankly, Perot, Wallace and McCarthy were hardly charismatic or visionary individuals. They were one-trick ponies and not exactly models of ethics or towers of emotional stability. What happens if the anger attaches itself to a more solid person, a Mike Pence or a Condi Rice or a Bill Bennett. What happens if a Paul Tsongas-type Democrat doesn't want to wait until 2016?
The most interesting distinction between the Tea Party movement and the followers of the aforementioned is that this attention is directed at the Congress, especially at the House where the spending originates. That tells me that the disenchanted may be in it for the long haul.
Will the Tea Party be around as a third party alternative in four years? Probably not. If it survives as an ideological movement, it may enable the birth of a credible third party or support the election prospects of Libertarian-leaning and Independent candidates both in and outside the main parties. It can continue to cull the ranks of Democrat and Republican candidates who disdain the voter's wishes. They will remain a potent force in national politics if they remain ‘beholden to no one.
This much is certain. The blinding loyalty of the Tea Party supporters to Republicans in this election cycle is simply a 'no other card to play' phenomenon. The Democrats clearly don't want to be contaminated by associating with the Tea Party types. If Boehner and his ilk cannot talk the details of entitlement reform and real spending cuts now, the day is never coming.
Just trust me and we’ll get into the details after the election. This is a bad play for Republicans. If you can’t be brave campaigning, why should voters expect you to be brave governing. For all their many flaws, Perot, Wallace and McCarthy were brave campaigners. In another lifetime, we called that honesty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
