A Referendum, Not a Choice
Unfortunately for Mr. Rove, last night was resoundingly a referendum and not, as he would’ve preferred, a choice. In desperation in his day-after afternoon press conference, President Bush was still talking about the two things he thinks are “important” to Americans: security and taxes. Mr. Rove was hoping that Americans would choose Republicans because they were scared of terrorists and how Democrats would seek appeasement at every opportunity and because they eschew the very principle of taxation, even with representation.
I actually agree that these issues are important, but my thinking about them in no way resembles the president’s. He prefers that Americans believe that we all, each and every one of us, know better what to do with American currency than he does; I prefer competent leadership that knows what resources it needs and then executes well when it has them. He prefers to walk the line regarding a clearly stated definition of torture; I prefer an America that operates as a true moral authority, never having its vision of justice questioned by free societies following its democratic lead. He prefers pre-emptive strikes; I prefer strengthening young democracies and the important institutions therein, working with them through the United Nations to police the fringes where dictators of all stripes lurk.
These are but a few interpretations of the issues the president thinks are important. In 2006, I take heart that this referendum which has created a clear Democratic majority in Congress brings America closer to my interpretation than to his.
An Unclear Mandate
Unfortunately for Democrats, last night was a referendum, not a choice. This means no mandate. This means a requirement to re-earn the trust of a majority of Americans, and their earning potential is not very high by my estimation of the past few years, during which the Democrats floundered on message.
Despite their victory, they remain on very thin ice as far as public perception of their aims on taxes and security. I do not expect that many of Mr. Bush’s tax cuts for wealthy Americans will be automatically renewed. Will the Democrats be able to attack the strengths of Republicans (a Rovian lesson) without defending this issue?
I expect more vigorous calls for strategic redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq. Do the Democrats have a game plan for working with the U.N. and the E.U. to continue working toward a stable Iraq? And is there a contingency plan in place if redeployment leads to even more chaos in Iraq? There has been no unified Democratic response to the situation in Iraq. Will there be? What does the anti-war contingent even want to do with Afghanistan at this point? Will the Democrats actually take meaningful action against North Korea? What approach will they take toward Iran? Israel/Palestine? Kashmir (which has been off Bush’s radar, publicly)?
And will they be able to communicate the answers to any of these questions to Americans in two years’ time?
All Things in Moderation
Fortunately for Democrats, the hardest hit among Republicans were the moderates. This leaves, especially in the House, the most strident of conservatives, who will have an even more difficult time helping build Mr. Rove’s long-term goal of a sustainable majority. Mr. Rove microtargeted, divided, and conquered for 6 years. And in the end, he gave up the moderates… to the Democrats.
Democrats have learned a lot from Mr. Rove. Howard Dean has led the DNC on an ambitious mission—this year to the chagrin of the DCCC’s Rahm Emanuel, who was in charge of the House takeover (and whose public moaning might quieten some after last night’s romp)—a 50-state strategy to build the Democratic party in all 50 states. That certainly sounds more sustainable than a series of often pyrrhic victories every 2 years.
But will Democratic voters, who are often the first to abandon an imperfect candidate for an ideal candidate (allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good?), be able to keep their big tent propped up? Several of the poles toward the middle of the tent are now moderates. Many of them are new to Congress, and yet the old, more liberal House Democrats have seniority. Democrats will face a serious challenge in attempting to define Republicans (which they should rush to do), maintain consensus, and keep politics local when it’s most important.
The Audacity of Hope
Going into yesterday, I was predicting the worst. I was predicting that Republicans would narrowly keep control of both houses of Congress. I’ve been living in a state of perpetual defeat since my political coming of age 6 years ago, when modern Republicanism, even as it became altogether more awful, also grew in power. Locally, things were still pretty bad by late last night. The best statewide candidate Democrats could muster couldn’t take down an uninspiring white male with an R after his name. Discrimination was overwhelmingly codified in the state constitution, which, based on how easily a tax cut was also codified, doesn’t seem to be clearly distinguished from laws in the eyes of many Tennesssee voters.
But on a national level, I was stunned. One of the best and most manipulative strategists American politics has ever known was beaten at his own game by the voters he has cynically taken for a ride for the past 6 years. And I’m left looking to 2008 with a significant amount of optimism. Even though Tennessee was unable to elect a black senator, the day after this election, I feel that if a man named Barack Obama threw his hat into the ring in 2008, he could win.
Recent Comments