Yes We Did

[justanotherg33k]

As I reflect on the enormity of this election, I can't help but wonder if this was how it felt to elect JFK and Reagan. I was young and in a divided household during the Reagan election, and JFK was before my time, but these are the elections that come to mind right now

Comments

[veyasar]

I think that this is an interesting time. Keep in mind, when Reagan was elected, he still had to deal with a decades-long control of congress by his opponents. Despite Reagan's successes, the House didn't change hands during his terms. In 1994, the GOP finally took over Congress, but by then had to deal with a democrat in the White House.

The better analogy is to the election of Bill Clinton. Though Clinton never managed to get a majority, there was a similar spirit on the Left in the immediate aftermath of the election, and similar control of congress and the presidency. Clinton also ran as a moderate, and although unlike President-elect Obama he had a record to go with it, he nevertheless over-reached almost immediately.

I think something similar will happen with President Obama. Even if we assume that he will steer a moderate course (and his record suggests he won't), he'll be up against his own party in the House and Senate.

Keep in mind, the leadership of these bodies doesn't represent the country as a whole, they represent the center of their own party's delegations, which tend to come from the safest, most ideological districts (especially when you consider the advantages of seniority). That's how the Nancy Pelosis of the world can beat the Harold Fords of the world. They're also responsible for coralling the various aligned interest groups, which will all insist on their price for all the help they just gave. Unions, hedge funds managers, and trial lawyers are major democratic interest groups, and they have their legislative agenda primed and set to for him to sign, whether he wants them or not.

While Obama will almost certainly have some kind of honeymoon period, sooner or later he'll have to sign or veto the controversial bills on the democrat legislative agenda: elimination of secret ballots for unionization, banning ideological opponents on talk radio, and more. In addition, he'll have to take concrete positions on issues he's carefully avoided until now like protectionism and the war. He'll have to decide whether to keep or repudiate issues he's taken moderate positions on, like gay marriage, gun regulation, and tax cuts. He's promised spending cuts; now if he's serious he'll have to specify what he'd cut and how much.

One area where I think he won't have to face down his party is Iraq. Now that we've pretty much won there, his main challenge is to procrastinate on withdrawal long enough to solidify our gains. Thanks to the surge, he's under no pressure to leave if he feels at all reluctant. Oddly enough, he has Senator McCain to thank for that.

If Obama's able to keep Pelosi and Reid in check, he can focus on incremental changes and popular issues like healthcare and alternative energy and hold off on the rest until after the 2010 midterm election. By then, with a moderate record, gains in Congress, and entrenched seats in the swing districts, he'll be able to push more radical measures without sacrificing his moderate wing and losing Congress.

However, it's far more likely that congress will hand him a string of controversial bills early. He may even ask for them. Signing them will push swing districts back into GOP hands. That plus the inevitable blunders that every President makes will create an opening for fresh Republican faces.

And thus the cycle continues... :)

[justanotherg33k]

It does seem very cyclic in nature. If we're lucky things get accomplished here and there during the process. :)