Jay Cost at Real Clear Politics thinks Barack Obama badly – very, very badly – misread what his “mandate” from the voters was. In looking at Cost’s analysis, I suspect he has this right – Obama got it wrong.
In a few instances instances, politicians can feasibly claim a mandate to implement a particular policy. The election of 1896 revolved around a clear policy debate, thus implying a policy mandate for McKinley (at least on gold). More often, mandates cannot be linked to actual policies, but to problems like recession. The election of 1932 is an example of this. That’s where politics can play a big role. Of course, many elections imply no mandate whatsoever. The election of 1988 is a good example. The vote that year was more an endorsement of the past eight than an indication of what should happen next.
Last year seems to fall into that middle range. There was no crucial policy choice made – nothing like gold over silver – but President Obama can feasibly claim some kind of mandate to get the economy out of recession. I’d base this conclusion on a few data points. The first is the trajectory of the horse race. Gallup showed a dead heat when the Democratic National Convention began – and after the Republican National Convention, McCain jumped out to a modest lead. Then the financial market began to crumble, and that was essentially the end of the campaign:
…
The 2008 election is a typical American response to economic woes. The country has been voting for out-parties during economic slowdowns since 1840, when it tossed Martin van Buren out on his duff. The United States votes for prosperity. It always has. It always will.
That’s why I have been so perplexed by the Obama administration’s legislative strategy this year. The contrast between the stimulus bill and the health care debate is especially peculiar. It’s a strange sight to watch continued gloomy numbers trickle out from the economic pulse-takers on the one hand, and Congress debating a “public option” and fretting over CBO scores on the other.
Go read the whole post, there are numbers and convincing graphs to back up the conclusion that Obama was given a mandate to fix the economy and return to prosperity. Not to spend us into huge unemployment, faltering value of the dollar and a very likely prolonged recession.
If Cost is correct here – and I suspect he is – the Democrats have badly overplayed their hand. This would explain the suddenly frantic calls for more “stimulus” spending while still trying to spend even more and kneecap the economy completely.
Seriously, go read the whole thing. I think Cost is on to something. And I also think Obama and the Democrats have a major problem. Actually, they have several problems. If the economy does what it looks increasingly like it is going to do – keep declining – they will be in serious trouble by 2010.
It all depends if Obama can keep blaming Bush for all the troubles in the world.
I don’t think they misread, they believe they were crowned to rule us and are making hay while the sun shines. If they move fast enough, put acorn and judges in place, they rule for the rest of time (and the USA will not last long).
I think the Democrats basically shot themselves in the head when they passed the stimulus bill. They didn’t take it seriously, it was just an opportunity to play politics and reward their constituency. If they needed brains to live they would already be dead, as it is the message has been slow to get to the rest of the body that is still chomping on the grass.
“I think the Democrats basically shot themselves in the head when they passed the stimulus bill. ”
Passing it without reading it is one thing. To pass it and then sit on the cash until just before the next election while people are suffering is criminal.
At this rate they aren’t going to be able to buy enough votes to get re-elected anyway so the might as well spend the cash now and possibly help some people.
At this rate they aren’t going to be able to buy enough votes to get re-elected
On the up side, I have a creeping suspicion that Sarah Palin will be the next president. It’s just a niggling little thing, but I’m looking around to see what odds I can get.
The current crop of democrats have one giant hole card that prior dem majorities didn’t have…Acorn. They will have plenty of votes to win the next time around. And a lot of their voters haven’t missed voting for a democrat since the late 1890s./
That is my concern also. With Acorn publicly funded to manufacture fraudulent votes and voters in the millions, with shameless registration of illegal aliens and the coming mass naturalization of millions of imported third world voters, with ballots “discovered” in car trunks in whatever number is needed, I suspect Americans have been allowed to choose their leaders for the last time.
It’s hard to disagree with any of Cost’s points except that I wouldn’t assume Obama misread his mandate so much as he saw his golden opportunity to reconstruct America to his vision and has taken it. With clear majorities in the House and Senate, he has a good shot at doing so.
As ever, it is difficult to divine Obama’s true intentions. Maybe he believes his vision is true and just and will be vindicated. Maybe he believes he can also transform the entire country into a Chicago-style machine and it won’t matter what his mandate is.
I would agree, though, that the natives are getting restless about the weak economy and escalating unemployment with no improvement on the horizon.
Obama and the Democrats may have miscalculated their window for jamming through New Deal II, and they may pay a terrible price for it. I certainly hope so.