Why so gloomy, Republican victors?

The New Neo Posted on by

This is why.

Obama is still president, and can veto anything they try to pass. Despite the huge scope of their House victory, the Democrats still control the Senate, albeit by a small margin. And Republicans are not popular with the American people; they were elected as an alternative to something even worse.

So, what can they do? They can’t pass legislation over a presidential veto unless they can get enough Democrats on board to help them override it. This is highly unlikely—unless a great many Democrats feel the hot breath of their own imminent departure from office in 2012 if they don’t get with the program. That’s also highly unlikely; many of the remaining Democrats in the Senate don’t even come up for re-election until 2014 or even 2016, and are immune to such a consideration, or are from true-blue states that would consider voting with Republicans to be a betrayal.

So this just may be the most sober tsunami election in history. Republicans may be able to hold off Obamacare through defunding; it’s unclear how that would work. What’s more, since they were elected to stop things rather than accomplish things, they can keep reminding people of what might have been passed (cap and trade, for example) if they hadn’t been elected. They can pass bills in the House and force Democrats to choose to vote yea or nay, while also getting Obama to go on record as vetoing some popular legislation. It’s possible Republicans can even drag enough Democrats on board to pass a few bipartisan (remember that?) initiatives such as tort reform, which Obama may hold off from vetoing, and thus Republicans could actually point to some accomplishments.

If people are savvy enough to understand the limitations of the current situation, they might forgive Republicans for not accomplishing much, as long as they keep their word and try to stop the most offensive moves of the previous Congress. They would also earn points by being sober and serious and focused on the task at hand.

It doesn’t seem as though expectations of those who voted for them are very high; my guess is that most people may understand how hard stopping or reversing the Obama-Pelosi-Reid legislative train will be.

[NOTE: I suggest that the Republicans not spend time attempting to investigate and subpoena Obama or his deputies. i don’t think the American people would appreciate more attacks and blaming; it will perceived as more divisive politics as usual, and they’ve had enough of that. The Republicans need to be the people’s servants, and stick to the reason they were elected, which is to stop the programs they don’t like, and attempt to get our fiscal house more in order.]

[ADDENDUM: Oh, and here’s a reminder that in 2012, there are 21 Democratic seats up for re-election vs. 10 Republican seats. That’s a big big difference. And quite a few of those Democratic seats are in states that are not so strongly liberal as this year’s crop.]

California’s sacrifice

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s a funny comment at Althouse’s from “bagho20:”

Out here in California, we have chosen to sacrifice ourselves. To continue with the experimental treatment even after it has made us seriously ill. We need to establish if the treatment is fatal when continued long term. We do this for the rest of you. Don’t let our sacrifice be in vain. Watch us and learn. Don’t turn your head, no matter how bad it gets. We regret that we have but one life to give for our country. Please visit us and put something in the tip jar. We live on that.

Here’s another treatment of what ails California, from Monty at Ace’s.

My own opinion about California and its effort to commit suicide is that it doesn’t see it that way. The state’s majority is composed of people living off the public till, and those who are proud of their magnanimous liberalism (sometimes the two rolled into one, sometimes not). Neither group cares to look where this is all headed, although it’s staring them in the face.

[ADDENDUM: Robin of Berkeley has some thoughts from the belly of the California beast.]

India on 200 million dollars a day

The New Neo Posted on by

Remember those Arthur Frommer travel guides that promised the reader a way to tour Europe and spend only $5 a day?

I know inflation has made that a thing of my youth. But still, I find this figure hard to believe, even for a restless president and his entire entourage.

Could it really be? And if so, why isn’t everyone outraged by it? And is this trip really necessary?

I’m all for cementing business ties with India, a country Obama spent the early part of his presidency alternately ignoring and offending (as discussed by this author, who seems to be an admirer of Obama’s foreign policy in general). But the side trip to Mumbai seems gratuitous and excessively expensive, even for Obama.

[ADDENDUM: I found it hard to believe, and apparently that was the proper attitude: it’s not true.

Whew.]

The Times on the Republican victory

The New Neo Posted on by

Shorter NY Times: it’s the tactics, stupid.

Yes, the Republicans just had a better organization and attack machine, “careful plotting,” and a “torrent of corporate money from outside interests.” Ha! Somehow they managed to overcome mere “miscalculations” of Obama and the Democrats, as well as their too “ambitious” agenda.

The article goes on for three full pages without mentioning the real causes for what it terms—in a general, amorphous, phrase—“an electorate with deep discontent.” I could find nothing about the economy and the failure to address its biggest problems, and to instead add to those problems. Nothing about the passage of HCR, cap and trade, any of the hugely unpopular Democrat-driven legislation this Congress muscled through against the public will in ways “transparently” nefarious. Nothing about how those things drove the people to try to tell the government how they felt in the summer of 2009, and how the government closed its eyes and ears, or demonized those trying to talk to it.

Looking at the 2010 map

The New Neo Posted on by

More random reflections on looking at this map of House results:

Quite a few states are either all red or all blue. But among those that are mixed, not too many are spotted. In other words, the red-blue divide within states often follows distinct geographic lines running either east-west or north-south, or (as in the case of liberal strongholds California, Oregon, and Washington) coastal vs. interior. Of course, the other divide in most states tends to be rural/urban.

Regions tend to be blocks, as well. New England now emerges as probably the most generally liberal area of the country, I regret to say. If you look at the map and mouse over it, you’ll see how strongly Democratic it remains, with Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Maine posting big Democratic victories and representing completely solid oceans of blue. In fact, those are the only states in the union that are solid blue, and they are all in New England.

And then there’s anomalous New Hampshire. Remember that motto, the one the other New England states laugh at, and which periodically comes up for repudiation by the state itself but thus far has survived: “live free or die“? That libertarian streak is a good part of the reason New Hampshire has turned back to the Republican side.

The map of the US is now predominantly red, but looks can be deceiving. The reddest states tend to be low in population. And because of the Democrat/urban link, my guess is that Democrats will try to take advantage of that and become ever more intent on abolishing the Electoral College if they ever should come back to power.

2010: the whiplash election

The New Neo Posted on by

The results of this election represent a backlash against the machinations of President Obama and Congress. But it isn’t just backlash; it’s whiplash.

Whiplash in the medical sense is caused not just by a sudden wrenching movement, but by a one-two jerking: first violently in one direction, and then violently in the other: “the head snaps forward and then back again.”

Despite the fact that the Senate remains (barely) in Democratic hands, this election is being compared to other large and sudden transfers of power in Congress, such as occurred in 1994, 1948, and even 1894, which was the biggest change of all (see this and this if you want some of the details). I’m not an election history expert, but I wonder whether there have ever been two such dramatically opposed consecutive Congressional elections as 2008 and then 2010. That’s where the whiplash would come in.

In the double whammy of 2006 plus 2008, control went from the Republicans to the Democrats in a pretty conclusive repudiation of the earlier Bush congresses. But the pendulum has swung forcefully back again in only two years.

But as I mentioned in this post, the Republicans are only on probation. They seem to realize it, at least for now (as the Democrats did not in 2008-2010); Boehner’s victory speech reflected that knowledge in a subtle way; Rubio’s in a more obvious one.

And here are some words from one of my favorite voices from the past:

Some post-election reflections

The New Neo Posted on by

(1) It’s not enough for candidates to be conservative. They need to be good, as well. Surely such candidates can be found, but many of the Republican candidates who lost last night (especially in the senatorial races) were not among them.

(2) The rift between red and blue parts of the country—and within many states—seems more sharply differentiated than ever.

(3) This split is mirrored by a similar split in Congress, where the Republican and Democrat parties have grown more conservative and more liberal, respectively.

(4) It’s very difficult to flip a Senate from a 60-vote majority for one party to a majority for the other party in a single election.

(5) California, New York, and Massachusetts will remain strongly liberal enclaves for the foreseeable future. (One caveat: rule 1 above may at least partly apply here. Republican candidates in each state were not generally strong. For the House it was different—see Bielat vs. Frank—but despite some good Republican candidates in those contests, the liberals were barely threatened. New Jersey and Christie, Massachusetts and Brown—both seem to be the anomalies rather than evidence of a growing trend in strongly liberal states.)

(6) The emergence of Republican women and minorities is one of the many pleasures of this election.

(7) The flip of many state legislatures to Republican is one of the so far untold stories of this election.

(8) The Republicans have their work cut out for them. They are now, as many have said, on probation.

Reid wins

The New Neo Posted on by

Just heard it on Fox; can’t find a decent link as yet.

This is bad news. He retains his seat, and probably the Majority Leader position, too.

Chuck Schumer may be sad about it, though. No Majority Leader spot for him.

Other random good news:

The margin of Rubio’s victory. Rubio gets it:

We make a great mistake if we believe that tonight these results are somehow an embrace of the Republican party,” Rubio told supporters at a rally, referring to his and other GOP wins around the country. “What they are is a second chance, a second chance for Republicans to be what they said they were going to be not so long ago.”

Allen West.

Kirk in Illinois. An especially sweet pickup.

Buh-bye, Grayson.

Buck of Colorado, who was behind a little while ago, seems to have pulled ahead.

It’s still election night

The New Neo Posted on by

Well, I’m back at my computer. Not a moment too soon. I’m writing this very quickly; apologies if it’s kind of sketchy.

Expectations were so high that reality couldn’t quite match it (particularly upset at how badly my guy Bielat did against Barney Frank).

On the other hand, it’s still pretty darn good. Most of the races have gone as expected so far, and it looks as though the accepted wisdom—Republicans control the House, Democrats retain slight majority in the Senate—may be exactly the way it goes down.

I haven’t had time to really think hard about it, but my first impression is that many of the blue states that went red tonight were blue collar blue states—Ohio and Pennsylvania, for example, as well as Illinois. Non-blue-collar blue states such as Massachusetts remain every bit as blue as ever (Scott Brown the lone island of red), and my prediction is that California will remain true blue as well, when all the returns are in.

This indicates to me that Democrats who switched were paying attention almost entirely to the economy, in particular their own jobs, rather than some permanent switch to a more conservative way of thinking. And many of the Republicans and Independents who flirted with the idea of Obama as moderate, healing force have learned their lesson.

The governorships are going strongly Republican, but that’s not a surprise, either. Governorships tend to be slightly more conservative in general (even Massachusetts has had the odd Republican governor, as have New York and California). This year, with its enormous fiscal challenges, people want to try some belt-tightening at the state level.

It’s Election Day!

The New Neo Posted on by

Well, it all comes down to today.

I’m going to be especially busy during the day and early this evening, although I plan to be back at my trusty computer by the time things really get going later tonight. But just in case I’m late to the party, here’s a thread for you to talk about it all.

vote.jpg

Yes, vote. Please. Not that any of you would fail to do so.

What I used to think of Republicans

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s Bookworm, writing a month ago in response to a question about what she used to believe about Republicans:

He was curious as to what I believed.

My answer was a simple one: “When I was a college Democrat, I believed that Republicans are evil people who hate blacks, children and poor people, who want to force everyone to convert to Christianity, and who want to weaponize America to take over the world.” In other words, my understanding of my ideology was simply that I, as a Democrat, existed to thwart evil Republicans. By voting straight down the “D” column on my ballot, I was protecting blacks, children and poor people, and keeping the proselytizers from my state house.

I believed all of this absolutely. I was unconcerned about more sophisticated issues of limited government; the moral rot of welfare; the economic damage wrought by government’s heavy hand in the marketplace; the genuine threat totalitarianism posed to world stability and American security; the danger of allowing government to pick winners and losers amongst its own citizens through taxation, spending, legislation and police action; etc.

All I knew was that Republicans were evil, and I was not evil. They hated people, and I wanted people to do well. Whatever they were for, I was against it.

Bookworm, of course, has since changed her point of view. But the question interested me: what did I used to think about Republicans? I’m older than Bookworm, and so not only do I have to think back further to come up with my childhood and young-adulthood memories, but the memories are of a different era, before liberalism had quite taken over so forcefully in the school system.

I never could have believed that Republicans hated blacks, for example, because I had personal memories of the 50s and very early 60s in the South, and I knew that it was Democrats who had stood in the way of civil rights there. Who could forget Orville Faubus or George Wallace? And who didn’t know they were Democrats? It was almost unavoidable to be aware of that, if you followed politics at all. So revisionist history about noble Democrats and racist Republicans could not touch me.

Likewise, I had been a child during the lengthy (seemingly interminable, at the time) presidency of Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican. His election campaign slogan was “I Like Ike,” and everybody did. It was nearly impossible to dislike him, or think of him as evil, even if you were a liberal Democrat, as were my “All the Way With Adlai” parents. He was a war hero, for starters. And he seemed a genial, non-extreme sort of president.

What’s more, I grew up in a part of New York that had a fair number of Republicans (for New York, anyway), and I knew some of them. They were just—well, they were just people. So there was really never any chance of demonizing Republicans in general. Maybe the John Birchers, whoever they were.

I also watched the decidedly odd Bill Buckley on TV and had to admit he was an intelligent sort, and humorous, too. It’s true that when Barry Goldwater conservatives started to take charge of the Republican Party it was a new breed of cat, and one with whom I disagreed at the time (I was still pretty young). But I never thought he wasn’t motivated by a sincere belief in what he was advocating, nor did I think he hated anybody.

At worst, I thought he—and other conservatives—just didn’t care all that much about poor people. I thought the worst they were was selfish and perhaps mean, rather than evil. But that was “mean” in the way of tough, hard parents who wanted their children to struggle and learn things on their own. As a child, I had no sympathy with that—I wanted things done for me! I wanted to be coddled! But at least I understood that it could be motivated by what we would now call tough love, rather than hatred.

Maybe I’m whitewashing the past. Maybe I was more intolerant and narrow-minded than I care to remember. But I don’t think so. Half the time I hadn’t a clue what party my friends belonged to, and didn’t care; we simply didn’t talk politics as a rule. In fact, I distinctly recall that when Clinton was running, I was very surprised to be part of a group conversation among about ten of my friends and to learn that all of them were Clinton supporters and Democrats. Until then, I’d had no idea.

Never such innocence again.