Difficult times for effective policy-making by Washington
Tuesday, 7 December 2010
Munir Ahmed
Furious and frustrated, Americans punished President Barack Obama's Democratic Party in midterm elections, passing control of the House of Representatives to Republicans and sending a blunt message of voter discontent to the White House. Republicans popularly called the GOP (grand old party) scored the biggest party turnover in more than 70 years with their win in the House.
The Republican Party may have made monumental gains in the recently held US mid-term elections, but the results are a repudiation of both parties. Republicans have few actionable policies, and the Democrats are not ready to deal with the three predicaments - in jobs, public finances and campaign financing - that most threaten the U.S. economy and political system.
But the Democrats' political failure is most notable. The message that special interests were helping to buy Republican allegiances - in light of a Supreme Court decision that allowed largely unlimited and secret third-party campaign spending - was unconvincing. A focus on technocratic solutions - "what works," as Barack Obama had said -- will never inspire those voters who understandably think that little in Washington works. And with continuing political discomfitures, the rest of Mr. Obama's mostly reasonable agenda will never be implemented. Republicans, enjoying this taste of blood, will be tempted to fight the last battle and ride anger all the way into 2012 elections and presidential primaries.
There is already a growing concern among Democrats President Obama may be vulnerable in 2012. More than anything, he needs an improved economy, falling unemployment - and more optimistic voters. If that doesn't happen, he may become the fourth one-term president in the past four decades, following Gerald Ford (1976), Jimmy Carter (1980) and George H. W. Bush (1992). Obama has already started to fight the 2012 election by defending his record.
On their part, American voters seem to have restructured their nation's political order. Their deep frustration with an unresponsive system again led them to recast its central players in the recently held midterm elections. This has resulted in a Congress in which both ends of the political spectrum will be unusually well represented, complicating the delicate task of building consensus just when the country's grim challenges require it most.
The vote seemed to underline voters' growing uncertainty with government. While they want change and demand solutions, they lack a consensus on policy and are still skeptical about the role and reach of government.
The vote was, perhaps, more a protest against how Washington functions than a clear declaration of a mandate for a new course of action. In their part, the Republicans with their calls to cut the size of government, will still have to convince people of just where those cuts should take place. While the GOP now has the power to initiate action, it might try to halt the White House agenda. But Obama still has a veto and can scrap any Republican initiated legislation.
And that means deadlock. Many voters said they would prefer a smaller government that does less. They're bound to get that. The sort of division that now exists in Congress has traditionally encouraged bipartisan paralysis, instead of pragmatism.
Raising the federal debt ceiling to allow day-to-day government to continue functioning is one of the priority tasks of the new Congress. Before the election, GOP leaders talked in general terms of plans to slash US$100-billion from non-defence discretionary spending as early as January, probably in education and health care.
It will be interesting to observe whether Obama goes on to the defensive, fending off Republican demands to repeal most of the legislation from his first two years in power. But it is unlikely that he will have a chance to advance his domestic agenda. As a result, he will probably follow the path of other first-term presidents who faced a divided Congress and focus on playing an expanded role internationally, while limiting his domestic interventions to calls for compromise.
A growing number of Americans are dissatisfied with partisanship and inclined to gladly support a "radical middle," a path that would be solution-oriented but politically astute - a path that would make hard trade-offs on taxes and spending, and a serious effort to diminish the role of outside spending in elections - to alleviate the country's deepest problems. But neither the Democratic party or the Republicans is ready or able to offer it.
Furious and frustrated, Americans punished President Barack Obama's Democratic Party in midterm elections, passing control of the House of Representatives to Republicans and sending a blunt message of voter discontent to the White House. Republicans popularly called the GOP (grand old party) scored the biggest party turnover in more than 70 years with their win in the House.
The Republican Party may have made monumental gains in the recently held US mid-term elections, but the results are a repudiation of both parties. Republicans have few actionable policies, and the Democrats are not ready to deal with the three predicaments - in jobs, public finances and campaign financing - that most threaten the U.S. economy and political system.
But the Democrats' political failure is most notable. The message that special interests were helping to buy Republican allegiances - in light of a Supreme Court decision that allowed largely unlimited and secret third-party campaign spending - was unconvincing. A focus on technocratic solutions - "what works," as Barack Obama had said -- will never inspire those voters who understandably think that little in Washington works. And with continuing political discomfitures, the rest of Mr. Obama's mostly reasonable agenda will never be implemented. Republicans, enjoying this taste of blood, will be tempted to fight the last battle and ride anger all the way into 2012 elections and presidential primaries.
There is already a growing concern among Democrats President Obama may be vulnerable in 2012. More than anything, he needs an improved economy, falling unemployment - and more optimistic voters. If that doesn't happen, he may become the fourth one-term president in the past four decades, following Gerald Ford (1976), Jimmy Carter (1980) and George H. W. Bush (1992). Obama has already started to fight the 2012 election by defending his record.
On their part, American voters seem to have restructured their nation's political order. Their deep frustration with an unresponsive system again led them to recast its central players in the recently held midterm elections. This has resulted in a Congress in which both ends of the political spectrum will be unusually well represented, complicating the delicate task of building consensus just when the country's grim challenges require it most.
The vote seemed to underline voters' growing uncertainty with government. While they want change and demand solutions, they lack a consensus on policy and are still skeptical about the role and reach of government.
The vote was, perhaps, more a protest against how Washington functions than a clear declaration of a mandate for a new course of action. In their part, the Republicans with their calls to cut the size of government, will still have to convince people of just where those cuts should take place. While the GOP now has the power to initiate action, it might try to halt the White House agenda. But Obama still has a veto and can scrap any Republican initiated legislation.
And that means deadlock. Many voters said they would prefer a smaller government that does less. They're bound to get that. The sort of division that now exists in Congress has traditionally encouraged bipartisan paralysis, instead of pragmatism.
Raising the federal debt ceiling to allow day-to-day government to continue functioning is one of the priority tasks of the new Congress. Before the election, GOP leaders talked in general terms of plans to slash US$100-billion from non-defence discretionary spending as early as January, probably in education and health care.
It will be interesting to observe whether Obama goes on to the defensive, fending off Republican demands to repeal most of the legislation from his first two years in power. But it is unlikely that he will have a chance to advance his domestic agenda. As a result, he will probably follow the path of other first-term presidents who faced a divided Congress and focus on playing an expanded role internationally, while limiting his domestic interventions to calls for compromise.
A growing number of Americans are dissatisfied with partisanship and inclined to gladly support a "radical middle," a path that would be solution-oriented but politically astute - a path that would make hard trade-offs on taxes and spending, and a serious effort to diminish the role of outside spending in elections - to alleviate the country's deepest problems. But neither the Democratic party or the Republicans is ready or able to offer it.