Now And Then
I notice that Harper’s Index is reporting that only 30 percent of Republicans say they are excited about voting in this year’s fall elections, as opposed to 46 percent of Democrats. What makes this especially interesting is that the numbers are compared with 1994, when the numbers were almost perfectly reversed (45 percent of Republicans versus 30 percent of Democrats).
Of course, the significance of that comparison is that 1994 was a great sea-change year for the Congress, when a pickup of – if I remember correctly – 52 seats in the House of Representatives gave Republicans control of that body for the first time in forty years, as well as control of the Senate.
The implication of the comparison – and it is one that I agree cannot be dismissed out of hand – is that the stage is being set for another reversal of control on Capitol Hill. Certainly, it is an especially believable possibility when one considers that the Democrats don’t need to pick up nearly as many seats this year to regain control of either – or both – of the chambers – 15 seats in the House and 6 seats in the Senate. But, having acknowledged that fact, I can’t help but take note of some differences between now and then.
In 1994, the country had experienced nearly two years of a government that featured Democrats in control of both political branches for the first time in twelve years. And it was that first two years of the Clinton administration in which the nation got a good glimpse of the types of policies that the Democrats wanted to pursue for the country – most notably the Hillarycare fiasco as well as history’s largest tax increase. And at the first opportunity – 1994 – the country repudiated them. In other words, the country turned away from the Democrats when the Democrats did what they said they would do.
The way we got to this point in 2006, however, is not a perfect match. As we approach the November elections, we have now experienced nearly six years with the Republicans controlling both political branches of government for the first time in decades. Early on in this “cycle,” the nation saw some significant strides made in advancing the conservative agenda – most notably the Bush tax cuts that have resulted in the recent economic growth of the country, as well as the aggressive pursuit of terrorist entities in Afghanistan who were responsible for the murder of thousands of American lives on 9/11. At the first, and second, opportunities to make their voices heard on the GOP control of government, the country reaffirmed its acceptance, even while acknowledging that not as much progress had been made in other areas as hoped for.
As 2006 approaches, rank and file Republicans are coming to realize that their partisan compatriots in Washington have, to a great degree, decided to abandon conservative principles – that core Republicans believe would reduce the size of government, and thus its intrusion into the day to day workings of American life, while pursuing the country’s enemies as aggressively as possible – in favor of policies designed to protect their incumbency and retain their hold on power.
Consequently, while in 1994 Democrats lacked excitement as the result of their party’s leaders, in control of the government, doing what they said they would do – with disastrous results – in 2006 Republicans lack excitement because their party’s leaders, in control of the government, are not doing what they said they would do, and what the people elected them to do.
In both cases, the excitement of the party out of power has to do with the opportunity they see in the dissatisfaction with the party in power. The difference, from my perspective as a conservative, is why the party in power is not excited. In 1994, liberals had their opportunity to try their approach to governing, they exercised it, and the results were not what they hoped. In 2006, Republicans have had their opportunity, and have not exercised it, and many of their supporters are wondering, then, why they need to expend time, money and emotion on supporting candidates in the first place.
Granted, regardless of the differences between the two elections, the results could be the same – a change in the balance of power in Washington. But Republican leaders might do well to consider these differences if, on November 8, they are trying to figure out where they went wrong.
Of course, the significance of that comparison is that 1994 was a great sea-change year for the Congress, when a pickup of – if I remember correctly – 52 seats in the House of Representatives gave Republicans control of that body for the first time in forty years, as well as control of the Senate.
The implication of the comparison – and it is one that I agree cannot be dismissed out of hand – is that the stage is being set for another reversal of control on Capitol Hill. Certainly, it is an especially believable possibility when one considers that the Democrats don’t need to pick up nearly as many seats this year to regain control of either – or both – of the chambers – 15 seats in the House and 6 seats in the Senate. But, having acknowledged that fact, I can’t help but take note of some differences between now and then.
In 1994, the country had experienced nearly two years of a government that featured Democrats in control of both political branches for the first time in twelve years. And it was that first two years of the Clinton administration in which the nation got a good glimpse of the types of policies that the Democrats wanted to pursue for the country – most notably the Hillarycare fiasco as well as history’s largest tax increase. And at the first opportunity – 1994 – the country repudiated them. In other words, the country turned away from the Democrats when the Democrats did what they said they would do.
The way we got to this point in 2006, however, is not a perfect match. As we approach the November elections, we have now experienced nearly six years with the Republicans controlling both political branches of government for the first time in decades. Early on in this “cycle,” the nation saw some significant strides made in advancing the conservative agenda – most notably the Bush tax cuts that have resulted in the recent economic growth of the country, as well as the aggressive pursuit of terrorist entities in Afghanistan who were responsible for the murder of thousands of American lives on 9/11. At the first, and second, opportunities to make their voices heard on the GOP control of government, the country reaffirmed its acceptance, even while acknowledging that not as much progress had been made in other areas as hoped for.
As 2006 approaches, rank and file Republicans are coming to realize that their partisan compatriots in Washington have, to a great degree, decided to abandon conservative principles – that core Republicans believe would reduce the size of government, and thus its intrusion into the day to day workings of American life, while pursuing the country’s enemies as aggressively as possible – in favor of policies designed to protect their incumbency and retain their hold on power.
Consequently, while in 1994 Democrats lacked excitement as the result of their party’s leaders, in control of the government, doing what they said they would do – with disastrous results – in 2006 Republicans lack excitement because their party’s leaders, in control of the government, are not doing what they said they would do, and what the people elected them to do.
In both cases, the excitement of the party out of power has to do with the opportunity they see in the dissatisfaction with the party in power. The difference, from my perspective as a conservative, is why the party in power is not excited. In 1994, liberals had their opportunity to try their approach to governing, they exercised it, and the results were not what they hoped. In 2006, Republicans have had their opportunity, and have not exercised it, and many of their supporters are wondering, then, why they need to expend time, money and emotion on supporting candidates in the first place.
Granted, regardless of the differences between the two elections, the results could be the same – a change in the balance of power in Washington. But Republican leaders might do well to consider these differences if, on November 8, they are trying to figure out where they went wrong.
posted by JeffreyH | 8:36 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home