Two years ago, the Democratic Party won one of the most decisive victories in modern electoral history. President Barack Obama carried 365 out of 538 electoral votes and 53 percent of the popular vote while Democratic candidates won solid majorities in both houses of Congress.
Obama had campaigned during a recession and the final months of the unpopular Bush administration, promising to “fundamentally transform” the U.S. and enact a wide-ranging progressive agenda — a platform seemingly ratified by the American people.
Interpreting this victory, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman claimed the election “was a clear referendum on political philosophies, and the progressive philosophy won,” disparaging the possibility that “voters will punish Democrats if they move to the left.”
John Podesta, co-chair of Obama’s White House transition team agreed, declaring that the 2008 election provided Obama with a “real mandate for change.”
Democratic strategist James Carville co-authored “40 More Years: How the Democrats Will Rule the Next Generation,” claiming the 2008 election was the beginning of a progressive era.
The Democrats concurred with these optimistic assessments, ignoring the possibility that their victory was the result of popular disgust with Bush, frustration with the recession, and fleeting infatuation with the personality of Obama.
Almost immediately, they embarked on an agenda of radical change, attempting to enact a cap and trade policy to curb carbon emissions and a sweeping reform of America’s health care industry.
The first of these measures failed, but the second — in spite of the setback brought with a Republican elected to replace the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, and bipartisan congressional opposition — passed after deals bordering on bribery were cut with Sens. Ben Nelson, D-Neb, and Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark.
This didn’t sit well with the American people. A CNN poll the day before Obama signed the bill showed that 56 percent of Americans believed that the bill involved the government too much with health care and 59 percent opposed its passage.
Waving away these concerns, former President Bill Clinton claimed, “The minute the president signs the health care reform bill, approval will go up, because Americans are inherently optimistic.”
Now, barely a month from the 2010 midterms, it has become clear that the voters did not hand the Democrats a mandate for leftist government in 2008. Republicans running explicitly against Obama’s agenda have won special elections in New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Virginia, all of which voted Democrat in 2008.
According to Real Clear Politics’ aggregate of polls, the proportion of Americans who disapprove of the job Obama is doing rose from 20 percent at his inauguration to more than 50 percent now. And, contrary to Clinton’s prediction, a Sept. 20 Rasmussen poll found that 61 percent of likely voters favor repeal of Obamacare.
The loudest opposition to the Obama administration comes from the tea party, which has supported insurgent Republicans running to the right of their more established opponents. The tea party has grown from a Tax Day protest in 2009 to a movement supported by 19 percent of the American population. It seeks to repeal Obamacare, cut taxes and spending and limit the federal government to the smaller role tea partiers say was envisioned by the Founding Fathers.
It’s a fair characterization to say that the Democrats misinterpreted the 2008 election. They committed hubris by ramming through unpopular legislation and ignoring the will of American people. The Democrats will be punished as it’s likely that Republicans will take over the House of Representatives and certain they will gain enough Senate seats for an effective filibuster.
A Republican landslide in November is likely, but the Republican Party’s response will determine the future of American politics beyond this one election.
Republicans must not replicate the same mistake Democrats made in 2008 and interpret a rebuke against an unpopular president and irritation at the state of the economy as a sign that the American people have ratified the tea party’s agenda. This would be as unproductive and politically suicidal as the Democrats’ recent extremism and tuning out of the American people.
Instead, both parties should give up on the dream of creating a one-party state and focus on providing popular, sensible and moderate solutions to the problems we face.
— Patrick O’Bryan, economics and letters sophomore
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
soonerboomers 1 year, 7 months ago
This article illustrates how utterly skewed the spectrum of politics is in the U.S. Anywhere in similar countries like Europe, this administration would be considered a moderate center-right one. What is a "moderate" solution? Any idea on that? No of course not. The author -- instead of actually arguing for policies on the basis of being good or bad -- simply plays the polls and concludes what ought to be done based upon some whimsical assessments of political will at the moment. The conclusion of this methodology of his is "sensible and moderate solutions."
Any articulation on what that means? Any concrete proposals that explain what a moderate solution is? No. What a fantastic example of the degraded nature of political discourse in the US. Gone are serious policy arguments where we discuss what should be done. Left is discussing what the poll of the day says and calls for some hazy "moderation", not specific moderate policies, just moderation in general.
What a useless column.
shawna 1 year, 7 months ago
This is the best opinion article I have seen from the daily this year. The author presented one simple yet original idea which was expanded and supported by evidence. The result was a logical and coherent article. Thank you.
cacremin 1 year, 7 months ago
Your call to moderation has it's merits but your article is filled with examples that could only come from ignorance or deliberate slander.
To characterize either the "can-and-trade" bill or healthcare reform as a far-left, progressive agendas is absurd.
"Cap-and-trade" was a policy proposed by conservative economists to counter the liberal/progressive plan of a flat carbon tax. Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, wasn't against this bill until it became politically advisable to obstruct anything supported by the Democrats.
The individual mandate in the healthcare bill was literally written by Republicans in the 1990s. It's not liberal or progressive. It's barely center left. It looks conservative next to the majority of national healthplans in developed nations. Of course, some hockey mom in Alaska frightened old people with a rumor about Death-Panels and suddenly half of the Senate was able to frame the bill as some sort of Bolshevik plot.
It sounds like you're basing your opinions off of the moment-to-moment reflections of an overreacted, 24/7 media rather than having the perspective that comes from studying the history behind these problems.
In short, the problem isn't that our government is "ramming through" a radical agenda. That's a nonsensical Fox News talking point and nothing more. These were compromised bills passed by an elected majority.
But you know what is a problem? Democrats and Republicans basing their disagreements on the letter that comes in parentheses before their name. Oh, and hacks in the media that misinform people.