In 2008, there was this swell of enthusiasm behind the “Change” candidate, Barack Obama, although the media may have overblown it, given that the voter turnout wasn’t significantly higher than it was in 2004 or 2000. Still, just in the fact that the Democrats regained the Presidency, and huge majorities in both the House and the Senate, it was clear that people wanted something dramatically different.
When Obama first came onto the scene, he seemed to advocate for all sorts of leftist policies, or at least was very good at pretending to advocate for them. In truth, if we look back, he was always a centrist, and expertly danced around making any serious commitments to moving left. He was always, since he first appeared on the scene, a product of the “Chicago Machine”, which is all about gaining or maintaining power vis-a-vis the status quo.
Now, 2 years later, the pendulum shifts the other way, with the Republicans gaining hugely in the House and significantly in the Senate. The reason many Democratic activists and party leaders cite for this shift is not their failure, oh no, but a growing apathy amongst their constituency.
As if the two things are unrelated.
Barack Obama, much to the criticism of the left, ceded too much to Republicans and the right, who sought to shoot him down regardless of any concessions he made. Because it was never and probably has never been about compromise, but about control. Even if Obama forwarded a completely right-wing agenda (and one could argue he has with regards to foreign policy), the Republicans would stand against him, simply because he is not a member of their party. They will never concede that any of the changes they want could be brought about by a Democrat. No, they need to be the ones to control and be rewarded for any changes that occur.
So the question that so many people asked of the Democrats was: “If they’re going to shoot you down, anyway, why not just push the agenda that your constituency wants?” After all, the Democrats had virtually unchallengeable power and did not much need the Republicans for anything. Yet in spite of every concession made – and perhaps they weren’t concessions, but the Democrats showing their true colors – the right would paint them as “socialists”, paint this picture of “government as enemy”, which is ironic given that it was part of the government itself making the claims.
In truth, Barack Obama is no closer to being a socialist than John McCain would have been. He is, on nearly every point, the enemy of socialism. But American exceptionalism being what it is – by this I mean their exceptional gullibility and capacity for boundless ignorance – the people on the right ate it up. The people on the left just sighed, because for all their enthusiasm in 2008, nothing much had “changed”.
In 2008, the Democrats had the advantage of being the minority party, of being the party standing in clear opposition to George W. Bush, who by this time had become near unanimously condemned by the American public and the international community. They had the ability to say they would “change” what was currently happening.
Now in 2010, after 2 years of the Democrats holding all the cards and doing not much of anything to deliver on those promises of change, the advantage shifted to the Republicans as the party not in power, to be able to say that things would change simply by virtue of a shift in power. What people fail to understand, it seems, is that a change in party does not necessarily mean a change in policy.
George W. Bush was much more of a radical than Barack Obama. He brought about a ton of changes, more with respect to Clinton than Obama has with regards to him. But it had nothing to do with disillusionment with Clinton. It had to do with fear, starting with 9/11 and proceeding from there. People will make all sorts of irrational decisions when they’re afraid. So, barring catastrophe, it has never been the case that a change in party represents a change in politics as usual in Washington.
It could be argued that the 8 years of Bush was enough of a catastrophe to warrant another serious change, and indeed it was that sense which enabled Obama to gather so much momentum. What he has done with that momentum, however, is to attempt to re-establish the Clintonian government, which was anything but radical.
It has been a running trend that the party of the President suffers serious losses in the following midterm elections. Why? Because every 2 years, at least, but more likely every day, people pine for “change”, in one thing or another. And when, following pendulum shift and pendulum shift – Republicans ceding power to Democrats and Democrats ceding power back to Republicans – no such change occurs, it leads to a surge in enthusiasm from the President’s political opponents, and a surge in apathy from the party’s constituency.
Had Barack Obama actually been a socialist President, he would’ve brought about changes that this country has never seen, and the same sort of opposition would’ve gathered. However, in how such changes increased job growth, mitigated the increase in poverty, stood up for the everyman, provided everyone with comprehensive healthcare not for profit but because it is a necessity, forwarded a real civil rights agenda, and improved our image around the world, perhaps the opposition would’ve come only from the contrarians and the irrational fringe, rather than average disaffected citizens who in large numbers just wanted to see something different.
It’s ironic, really, that people cry for change, yet they are so afraid of the kind of change that is actually needed. Socialism, because they don’t understand it, because it is so different from what they know (and they know so very little) and because it still – somehow – is tied to anachronistic Cold War fears, became their Red Herring. But had the Democrats actually advanced an agenda that even hinged on socialism, and people saw the kinds of positive changes that it could bring about, they might change their tune.
But the Democrats, whose agenda has never changed, and is virtually the same as that of the Republicans (i.e. to stay in office), dared not push that far left, because rocking the boat too much apparently leads to major losses. It’s a strange conclusion to come to, though, given that all historical evidence points to the contrary, that the pendulum shift is the status quo, that each party will rise and fall with unflinching regularity. All evidence was that the Democrats would lose big regardless of what they did or didn’t do.
One would think that the only way to change this dynamic, to halt the pendulum shift, would be to swing the damn thing so far left that the pendulum would snap off altogether – sending the country in an entirely new direction. Of course I couldn’t say with any certainty whether or not it would go flying towards rejuvenation or disaster, but a look around the world at other countries that have successfully instituted leftist policies, and at those that have failed miserably by instituting far right policies would suggest a positive outcome.
I realize that this is a very simplistic analysis, and that surely Democrats, well-trained in public policy, law, and everything else it takes to hold their positions, know all of this. If so, then one can only come to the conclusion that the pendulum shift, despite all their campaigning and rhetoric, is within acceptable parameters, and that they are content to let things play out as they will until it shifts back the other way.
Change, though? Of the sort required to keep their constituency enthusiastic? That would be too risky, might cost them too much, might eventually lead to some President instituting radical changes that throw the country into a downward spiral, make us hated around the world, trample all over civil liberties while providing for the triumph of big business.
Oh, wait.
So better to ride out this down tick in public opinion and wait for the inevitable backswing, right? Sure, so long as they have no intention of changing anything.
«