Victory And Its Cost

It wasn't a bad Election Night for America, I can tell you that.

In fact, Republican and McCain voter that I am, I am only disappointed that McCain lost - not that Obama won. As an opponent, he was exceptional; as a candidate, a unifier; as a person, relentless. None of these qualities are negatives in our President. But enough ticking off my fellow conservatives.

Now the post mortem.

***

Change

Nov. 4th, the Democrats regained the White House after eight years out. Garnering 52% of the vote (vs McCain's 46%) and 349 Electoral College votes (to McCain's 163...so far), Barack Obama became the 44th US President and, making history, the first black President.

The Democrats also increased their majorities in the Senate (56 vs 40; 4 races outstanding) and House (254 vs 173; 8 races outstanding), making this the most powerful Democratic administration-elect since Carter won the White House in 1976 after the Watergate debacle.

There will surely be change in Washington, though the true extent will remain unknown until the cabinet is fleshed out and we get a sense of how the head of the government will think. Obama moved toward the center in public during the campaign, opening up the possibility that he'll appoint Republicans and work - truly strive - for bi-partisan support. He claims he'll be a post-partisan in the White House, beyond the divide that's gripped Washington since there was a Washington.

One only has to listen to Obama's speech to know that he's publicly tied to reaching across the aisle. In the past, he's cited Teddy Roosevelt (McCain's champion even more than Reagan) as a President he'll hope to emulate, seeking progress beyond party politics. The uplift felt from Chicago to Berlin to Wasilla, AK, last night as he made history with each minute he was President-Elect was palpable for anyone paying marginal attention. No one can deny him his moment.

What we look to now is legislation, and what he'll enact first.

I doubt we'll see tax reform for at least a year, if only because diminishing federal revenues at this stage (recession) isn't the smartest plan; I'm sure McCain would've waited as well. The rallying cry come January '09 will be two-fold: Energy & Iraq.

On the latter, Obama can work with Bush over the next two months and change to fix a timetable for withdrawal far quicker than 2011 (the current deadline for removal or renewal of commitment). While his foreign policy wonks are divided on the 18-month plan, as it clearly defines the hour of departure, he wants the troops gone. If he wavers, he faces intense pressure from the anti-Iraq War wing of both parties that provided him much support. How he goes forward depends on the first decision of importance: the defense secretary selection. Should he choose Gates, it might give credence to the idea he's keeping the troops there and initiating, say, benchmarks for the Iraqi government above and beyond what we have now. If Chuck Hagel, the anti-Iraq War Senator from Nebraska, is tapped, expect withdrawal plans to be drawn up. Personally, I don't see him holding to the 18-month plan; it's too specific for him, and may anger the military. He absolutely has to get off to a great start with the armed forces who, it must be noted, preferred Sen. McCain at the polls.

Looking to the price at the pump: Energy. Will Al Gore be tapped for this post? Sarah Palin (it's not as impossible as it sounds)? T. Boone Pickens?! The ten-year, $150 billion Green Initiative Obama has planned requires more immediate action than anything else he wants to do. To create the infrastructure to support next-gen cars and energy, you can't wait or close down sources, like Clinton did. Nor can you underfund, like Bush is guilty of doing. I disagree with his price-point for this venture and the way he'd spend it, but the thought is there, the overall idea of that we have to move forward with energy, even if we flounder in public a while (this is what we (R)s have to do, find the silver lining, the last root to cling to as we fall over the cliff to irrelevance).

Being mindful of the stock markets, Obama now has to look at the energy sector, the companies involved and the damage potential to a wild gesture to the green movement. It's all well and good to hate Big Oil and their profits (remember: their profit margins are actually slimmer than in many other industries), quite another thing to punish them with huge windfall taxes to fund their own demise. Working with energy firms, including those that qualify as Big Oil, you dirty hippies, you can better reward them for investing in green/alternative (renewable) fuel tech (tax breaks) now that they'd be funneling so much of their profits to new revenue sources. Get the automakers in there and the energy storage/distribution manufacturers while we're brainstorming. Reward (it's a great concept) private sector achievement by adopting McCain's idea of starting a contest to develop the best tech related to the NuEnergy (so stylish!) initiative; you harness the entrepreneurial spirit of our (armchair) engineers and scientists without a massive outlay of funds.

Moving on more than Energy and Iraq requires support that, right now, Obama just doesn't have. There are still any number of conservative Democrats that will buck the party line to oppose firearm restrictions and gov't subsidized health care, regardless of the party platform; their constituents would gut them in 2010. Likewise, tax reform takes care, time and broad support to work out. His tax-the-top, slash-the-rest idea (more on that in a few weeks) sounded great on his infomercial last week, but Big & Small Business give to more than just Republicans. The very people that lifted Obama up threaten him through their support of Congress. One thinks back two and fourteen years ago to the reversals of fortune of the ruling parties.

***

Mandate or Protest?

The biggest question facing Obama (and the Democrats by extension) is a head-scratcher: did he get a mandate?

Yes, he received a majority of the popular vote, the best percentage for a Democrat since LBJ in 1964 (Carter just squeaked by over 50% and Clinton never moved beyond 49%). His Electoral College victory is pretty significant, though as we know, 50.1% in most states can give you a major Electoral College win. So the E.C. doesn't provide evidence of a mandate, just a well-run campaign.

I've said before that Obama would get at least 3.5% more of the popular vote than McCain, regardless of if he won the E.C. He looks to be getting around 6% more, and with more absentee ballots and provisionals, I'm sure the number will tick up a few tenths of a percent before the final count is done. He could even hit a solid 53%, giving him between six and seven points up on McCain. That's in the middle when it comes to recent results: more than GWBush's margin (or Gore's...), less than Clinton's (both times) and decidedly less than GHWBush & Reagan's strong showings. One thing he has on Bubba is the true majority win, not a simple plurality. So does it make a mandate?

An argument for would be that he convinced a majority of the population (difficult to do since 1988), his lead is greater than a few percent (three times Bush's 2004 margin), and his E.C. gap is significant.

The counterweight to that joviality would be the E.C. can be won without the popular vote, or a bare majority, his popular margin is no approaching the same level as any of the living memory's landslides (and therefore, mandated Presidencies) and while 52% voted for him, 48% voted against him. One can also say this was a referendum election against Bush and the Republicans, a perfect storm for them that generated the "righteous winds" carrying Obama to the Oval Office.

I'd like to take a middle road. I discount E.C. margins; history doesn't prove a big majority there equals a mandate (Nixon vs. JFK comes to mind). What I do look at is the popular vote set against the background of the last four years' history. GWBush gets reelected with a ~2.5% margin over Kerry, passing the 50% barrier. He claimed, but did not really get, a mandate. What he got was the bare minimum of majority support for a second term. Two years later, he suffered a round defeat and reversal of fortune when Democrats overturned the Republican majorities won in 2004.

Obama has more going for him than that Bush did with either win, but he owes much of his White House victory to the current occupant. If Bush had 40% approval ratings, I think Obama might have lost. With only 1 in 4 saying he was doing a good job, Bush gave McCain little to work with while providing Obama and the DNC with perpetual sunshine for their hay-making. Sure, Obama had a plan and stayed consistent, if non descriptive, over the last eighteen months. That helped, But his win rests on a pile of negativity that can just as easily swallow him, too.

So I say no mandate, but no squeaker win. The public is outraged and would've voted most Democrats in over a Republican candidate. The opportunity this provides Obama is not to push through his agenda as is, but to refine it with the Republicans and diffuse the negativity that would slap him around should his plans fail. Everyone likes to award people that nebulous mandate, as though any win greater than .5% is titanic in scope. The Democrats did not get 30+ House seats, 60 seats in the Senate or a ten-point popular vote Presidential win. Voters, of course upset, didn't want to give the reins of government that fully to just one party.

So the message is still bi-partisanship and shared government. Amidst all the editorials harping about "mandate" and great change, Obama should remember that.

One more tidbit: in '76, Carter had the most equivalent White House and Congress to Obama's, riding high on discontent over Watergate and the divisions in the Republican Party. It was a decidedly left-of-center Administration. We all know how well that turned out in '80, '84, '88...well, until Tuesday night. Liberalism was trumped by Conservatism at best, moderation at least, and the trend continued - moving towards the center-right - for nearly three decades.

Keep history in mind at all times. We might not repeat it word-for-word, but we do recall certain scenes and themes.

***

GOPetered Out

It's going to take a lot of thought and writing to figure out what exactly faces the Republican Party. Have they become the Whigs, destined for the history books? This country could see it fracture and give us the seeds of the next major coalition party, as the Republicans were 150 years ago.

They've had a great run, if that's the case. Since their first Presidential victory with Abe Lincoln in 1860, they've followed it with wins in 1864, 1868, 1872, 1876, 1880, 1888, 1896, 1900, 1904, 1908, 1920, 1924, 1928, 1952, 1956, 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000 and 2004. So over the last 148 years, the Republicans have won 60% of the time. Not too shabby. Maybe it's time to put them out to pasture, let them either come up with a refocused agenda or give another party the spotlight. They've never had a period in history where, like the Democrats in the 30s and the 60s people have flocked to their side. You usually get crossover voters, Reagan Democrats as an example. The Democrats are the majority party, per registration, while the Republicans only have about 1/3 of registered voters. The rest are either independents or with third parties.

I think, as I stated before, it was the adherence to the right-wing (socially) of the party that killed the Republicans. They were originally a progressive party and for more than a half-century, enjoyed that mantle. But now most see them as reflective of older times, reckless spending and little direction. The party itself is older, with little youth to fire it up, and don't even look at the demographics - they're as starkly white as the driven snow. 1/3 Hispanic support. 1/3 Asian support. 1/20 black support. Those are poor, poor numbers in our increasingly diverse country.

So let's ponder the future for this Grand Old Party, see how they react to their loss and the ascendance of an ideology and leader more dynamic than anything they've got going.

***

I titled this post "Victory And Its Cost," with the victory obvious. It's that cost we need to take into account. The country voted without much regard to the ideology behind the "change," selected its next leaders based in large part on the dislike of the previous guys and saw the ruin of a political party that has done a lot of good, though it's certainly faltered in the last six years (power corrupts...etc).

I think Obama's election was, in the scope of history, worth it. But we must remember what it took to get here, and what it may mean after he's gone.

***

The cabinet will be forming soon and with it, the direction of Obama's (first) term in office. How partisan will his choices be? Will he reward Chicago/Illinois politicians? It's not like they're going to be replaced with Republicans if they hike on over to D.C.

Very interesting times.


-Hooper