Kendall Harmon, who runs Titus One Nine has a great post: The Day After (III)–Kendall Harmon: Why What Happened Happened
An unpopular President who has not been effective.
An unpopular war that was poorly prosecuted, especially early on.
A gigantic financial crisis right at the height of election season.
John McCain ran a poor campaign.
Barack Obama ran a very good campaign.
I was struck by two headlines on the New York Times website after the election results were declared:
Racial Barrier Falls as Voters Embrace Call for Change
McCain Loses as Bush Legacy Is Rejected
The question is: was it more of the former or the latter? My answer is more of the latter. Mr. Obama is for hope and change. But hope for what exactly? Change of what kind exactly? He almost became a Rorschach test on which people projected their various dreams and aspirations. But he mainly won because he is not George Bush. There is really a huge range of possibilities of what kind of a President he will be–he could be very good, or very poor, or many places in between. We shall see. But he–and we–will discover very quickly that governing is MUCH harder than campaigning–KSH.
I think Kendall pretty much nails it. I'm unconvinced that this is a big sea-change election. Some big new idea usually marks such monumental elections. In 1932, it was the New Deal and activist government. In 1980 it was limited government and freedom. This election featured both parties offering minor variations on the same themes they've been preaching for the last forty years. Polls still indicate that a majority of Americans believe in such things as limited government and lower taxes. Obama's policies don't match what most voters say they value in a policy sense. Therefore, I suspect we have not a policy mandate but a mandate for a leadership style.
I still don't believe that either party has yet come to grips with what will be the challenge of the 21st Century: The equitable distribution of human capital. (I'm channeling Robert Fogel here.) The 20th Century was largely a battle about equitable economic outcomes, reducing the difference between the haves and the have-nots. Today it is far more about the haves and the have alots. By human capital, I'm referring to people having the social networks and institutions that create a broad-based support system for human flourishing beyond just economic resources. No amount of income redistribution, taxing the wealthy, intensely regulating business, or a host of other Obama-like policies, justified or not, will significantly impact this.
Republicans are trapped in an economic determinism as well. Making everybody more prosperous through economic policies and lower taxes isn't going to get it done. Token gestures to the "traditional family" or toward a handful of socially conservative hot-button issues won't get it done either. Still, I tend to pragmatically be a republican (with a small "r") because at least there is not an active movement to marginalize mediating institutions in society. Democrats have a strong tendency to make every aspect of our lives an extension of federal control, thus atrophying and weakening the very institutions that should be at the heart of societal renewal.
In many ways, I can't get over how much like 1976 this election feels.
- A Democrat consensus-oriented centrist outsider displaying religious morals (Jimmy Carter), pledging to set a new tone in Washington, wins the Iowa primary and defeats the Democrat heir apparent (Ted Kennedy) for the nomination.
- Rebuke of bumbling Republicans, including the handling of an unpopular war.
- Energy and commodity markets in turmoil.
- Apocalyptic prophecies of environmental doom and dire predictions of vanishing resources.
History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes. I'm aware that for many of my friends in their twenties that this Democrat ascendancy seems like some invigorating (or terrifying) new development. For me, this is deja vu all over again. Jimmy Carter's election and congressional majority led to the Reagan Revolution four years later. President Clinton's election and congressional majority led the Republican Revolution that took over Congress in 1994. Now Obama will take over the presidency with a Democrat majority next January. Will there be a different outcome? I'm doubtful because, despite some new, more moderate faces, the leadership in both houses of Congress is more activist and radical than the congresses Carter or Clinton had to deal with. I place the odds at better the 50% that they will engage in deeply partisan acts, sparking a new level of turmoil, including Democrats fighting Democrats. Basking in the glow of Tuesday's election, we are hearing proclaimed the death of rancor and partisanship. I have no such inklings. If anything, I think we are ripe for greater unrest.
Finally, on a less gloomy note, regardless of our various political persuasions, Obama's election is an extraordinary event in this nation's life. I'm not sure young adults can fully appreciate how inspiring it is to see a Black man elected to the highest office. Because of expanded personal context, I suspect the older you are, the more inspiring and wondrous this event is. If nothing else, we can praise God for this giant symbolic step toward justice out of our shameful past.
Leave a Reply