From a purely strategic standpoint this election means not so much. The GOP controls the house which is nothing to sneeze at however they don't control the Senate and with the too close to call senate races in Colorado and Washington seemingly breaking towards the Democrats the margin of majority will be slimmer but still a majority nonetheless. Last check Obama was still the President.
With regards to the media. While last weekend's Jon Stewart rally was attended mainly by progressives the message actually was one that any rational person regardless of ideology can digest. The media ( CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX, MSNBC) in many cases only tell the narrow niche viewers that watch them what they want to hear. That might make everyone watching feel better about what they stand for or believe in but it's not really what the media is supposed to do. This has been a long term bugaboo of mine. It cuts both ways. Ed Shultz and Keith Olbermann are nothing more than liberal versions of Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly. Beck crying like a baby and lamenting the anti-american and socialist members of Obama's administration does absolutely nothing but rile up an already economically stressed out group of people. LIkewise to Schultz calling people "teabaggers, and racists" When the goal of news becomes ratings points and advertising revenue everyone loses. This is because truth and facts are generally not sexy things. They just are. This viewpoint is in itself a progressive stance. A free-market, conservative stand would suggest that if the news sells it is somehow valid. That's a debate that I'd be happy to have with anyone. This attitude has permeated much of our lives. How often in the last election cycle did you hear a politician or pundit validate a policy proposal by referencing public opinion polls? That's an amazing insult to our society because it's a very overt way of saying " Im standing for this because you want me to" as opposed to" I'm standing for this because I truly think it's right" They're supposed to be leaders not followers. Children do things to make their parents happy, adults make decisions based on what they believe to be right. As soon as the media and the politicians stop acting like teenagers afraid of sitting at the uncool lunch table things in this nation will get better quickly. That won't happen when ratings points and advertising revenue dictate how news is disseminated. If you like Bill O'Reilly better than Rachel Maddow that's fine. There's nothing wrong with that at all, you are more than entitled to your opinion. However if you somehow think that the fact that more people watch O'Reilly on a nightly basis somehow makes his news better or more factual then that's a problem. One has nothing to do with the other. If a public opinion poll could have been taken in Portugal in the year 1491 there's a fair chance that a vast majority would say that the world was flat. Maybe Columbus would have backed out of his trip? Perhaps the results would have slashed funding for his trip? More people think the world is flat- so it must be true right? It's an absurd premise. Yes our tax dollars do pay politicians, but that doesn't mean they should be bending in the wind on each piece of legislation based on a bunch of focus group snap polls. The media for their part are supposed to be exposing this and reporting it accurately. Just because there's a liberal in one seat and a conservative in another doesn't mean either one of them are telling you what is "news". They're just telling you what they think. "News" is supposed to be a factual entity not something that two pundits argue over. There was a time when networks did not hold news departments accountable with regards to profit. It might be impossible to somehow bring that type of attitude back into vogue but it's a very worthy pursuit because of ALL the hyperbole that exists out there. A free and accurate press really is very, very important. Just being able to say what one wants is only half the picture. There has to be some sort of standard of accuracy dictated by something other than what generates a profit and I eagerly await a real newscast that does this.
I'd say that the GOP has put themselves in a very tricky position. Many of their candidates ran on total repudiation of the Obama agenda. Even after the massive gains they made last night they have zero chance of overriding a presidential veto or of getting hard line conservative legislation through the senate. They can either compromise which many of the candidates ran AGAINST doing or they can create gridlock which totally doomed them in the 90's. Both options have substantial risk. Create gridlock and they will lose many of the moderates and independents that broke their way this cycle. Compromise and they tea-party people will be very upset. Thus the results of this election cycle will not be earth shattering. The odds are very good that the country has some form of economic upswing in the next two years. This would be the case even had the GOP won the Senate and House last night or had the GOP been swept totally out of office in an unprecedented Democratic wave.
I'd say that the GOP has put themselves in a very tricky position. Many of their candidates ran on total repudiation of the Obama agenda. Even after the massive gains they made last night they have zero chance of overriding a presidential veto or of getting hard line conservative legislation through the senate. They can either compromise which many of the candidates ran AGAINST doing or they can create gridlock which totally doomed them in the 90's. Both options have substantial risk. Create gridlock and they will lose many of the moderates and independents that broke their way this cycle. Compromise and they tea-party people will be very upset. Thus the results of this election cycle will not be earth shattering. The odds are very good that the country has some form of economic upswing in the next two years. This would be the case even had the GOP won the Senate and House last night or had the GOP been swept totally out of office in an unprecedented Democratic wave.
So one of the next big issues will be who claims "credit" for an economic upswing? History tells us sitting president's receive credit for economic upswings and take blame for downturns regardless of wether or not they deserve it. Clinton and Reagan both offer clear evidence of this. Both were decimated in their first midterm elections due in large part to economic turmoil and both cruised to reelection. In my lifetime I can't remember two LESS suspenseful presidential election nights than 1984 and 1996. Boehner is far less skilled a political tactician than Gingrich was so I'm not that concerned with the GOP somehow highjacking any sort of economic revival. The real question is how the democrats go forward? While their policy options have become somewhat limited they do have a fairly progressive caucus. Not many blue dogs left and very few Dems operating in red districts. Obama's biggest and it turns out most unrealistic challenge once he won the office was following through on the duality of his campaign. It turns out at this point in our nation's history one can't govern on unity AND create bold change. The sacrifices needed to make that attempt render both causes to be perceived as failures. Rahm Emanuel thought he could do it by working behind the scenes but Obama also ran on transparency and at every turn Rahm created another firestorm. His departure makes things interesting. Who will take over and fill that void and more importantly can they do a better job?
Today Obama held a press conference at 1pm. I didn't think it was bad. In the immediate aftermath of an election night there's no need for fire and brimstone and in addition Obama is not a fire and brimstone style of speaker. He's very measured and quite savvy. If you look at some of things he said during that conference he's already throwing things at the GOP that they will be silly to not accept. In addition he also offered up zero concessions on the expiring Bush Tax cuts. Finally while he did acknowledge the voter discontent he did not say it was due to progressive policies. In fact his statements regarding his policies lack of timely and immediate impact contributing to voter outrage suggest that he may in fact be thinking those policies were not bold and progressive enough. I think he will ( without admitting it) follow Clinton's model from 94-96. That's a fairly successful model and Clinton did in fact make a stand against the GOP by not conceding the entire budget to them and forcing them to capitulate the far right base and shut down Washington. A move which totally blew up in their faces. Yet here they are less than 15 years later and already they are saying they'll do it again.
It will also be interesting to see how McConnell and Boehner mange their crew. Let's face it. There are a bunch of new GOP people in the house and three senators Paul, Rubio, and Lee that are fairly beholden to the tea party. Those two congressional leaders can kiss the asses of the tea party in the media all they want but the instant they make a compromise, sign on to a piece of bi-partisian legislation or embrace anything even vaguely resembling an Obama backed policy they're going to hear it and LOUDLY from the teaparty. Already today Dick Lugar, Orin Hatch, and Scott Brown are on a list of GOP senators targeted in primaries for 2012.This is what's called "being backed into a corner". Have fun boys!
No comments:
Post a Comment