Wednesday, November 08, 2006

Lessons from Last Night

Yesterday's midterm elections were a stunning repudiation of Republican policies, particularly over the last two years. I was one of those dumbstruck knuckleheads who didn't think the American voters were that angry that they would turn over the power of Congress to the Democrats. Michael Medved has an interesting--if difficult to read--column today on the lessons Republicans need to take away from last night.

Top of his list is that Americans are serious that they want a different direction in Iraq. The problem with this idea, especially as it is represented in polls, is that many Americans don't want us to pull out of Iraq; they want us to be more aggressive and win in Iraq.

Many of these citizens voted for Democratic candidates (who remained deliberately vague about their alternatives to Bush policies) as the only means to register their frustration with the President’s allegedly “half-hearted” approach to warfare. These militant victory-at-any-cost, protest voters will get little satisfaction from the new Democratic majorities: the prospect that the Pelosi-crats would actually approve more funding and more force for Iraq is dim to non-existent. Instead, the President will receive the long-awaited report from the bi-partisan Baker Commission that will feature significant suggestions about redeployment and more effective cooperation with the Iraqi government. Bush will also seek Democratic support for quick implementation of those suggestions, with the aim of giving the struggling democracy in Iraq at least some chance to establish itself without encouraging the terrorists by stipulating a date-certain U.S. withdrawal.

Secondly, Medved states that you can't beat something with nothing. This was precisely what Republicans did throughout the last two years. Instead of coming up with and implementing policies that would be helpful and popular, Republicans spent their time telling the voters how scary "Speaker Pelosi" sounds. Well, evidently enough voters didn't think that sounded scary at all and now everyone has to live with that. I am pretty sure that many of those who voted Democrat (both left and right) aren't going to be happy with Democrat control of Congress. The left won't be happy because they probably won't get impeachment hearings and an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. The right won't be happy because Democrats won't send more troops to Iraq or change the alternative minimum tax (which will start biting a lot of upper middle class taxpayers this January) and probably will pass a higher minimum wage and other gratuitous treats for its base.

Medved also points out that gay marriage wasn't as big an issue this year as in 2004, but it is an issue that stretches across party lines. I never bought the idea that it was gay marriage that caused so many people to vote Republican in 2004; I always thought more people voted for Republicans in 2004 because they were concerned about changing command in the middle of a war and were willing to let President Bush lead. This year, we are seeing Democrats winning ostensibly red states...which also passed gay marriage bans.
After today’s vote, media talking heads and gay rights advocates need to acknowledge that the opposition to the redefinition of marriage isn’t just a partisan ploy, but a sincere conviction shared by strong majorities in every corner of the country.

Finally, Medved gives kudos to pollsters who were so wrong in 2002 and 2004 but got it dead on the money this time through.
In 2000 and 2002 and 2004, elections produced some big surprises and some of the high-profile polling proved misleading. This time, the pros seemed to have achieved new levels of professionalism—calling each race (in the most up-to-date figures) with unexpected accuracy. The pollsters proved right not only in forecasting outcomes, but even when it came to margins – properly designating those contests that counted as close and those that did not. The New York Times on election day cited a prediction by Charlie Cook, one of the most respected insider analysts, that declared that Democrats would gain “between 20 and 35 seats in the House.” Give credit where it’s obviously due: the experts appear to have put aside partisanship (for now) and refined the reliability of their product.

This year's elections may be the start of a new Democrat regime, or it could just be a bump in the road for conservatives. The important thing is to watch what the Democrats do and then ask yourself if that is what you really wanted when you voted them in.