From the woman, who gave us "Drill Baby Drill" as her coherent, convincing response to environmental policy, comes the title of my latest post. Perhaps this was her vague attempt at recreating the Ronald Reagan line, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" which was to be a defining moment in the 1980 Presidential debate with Jimmy Carter and can be seen here.
So with the mid-term elections of 2010, almost a week away, and certain to set the stage for the last 2 years of the Obama Presidency , the crucial question, is how will the likely beating at the polls affect Democrats and the Obama Presidency. I say likely, because even the most optimistic Democrat will tell you that the House is virtually lost and the Dems haven't been able to hammer through legislation with 59-60 senators, wonder what they can get done with 52-53. Worse still, this is not a credible alternative that is set to replace them but a ragbag coalition of conservative Republicans, backed by that great Tea Party of "patriots, anti-government people (who want to regulate abortion but don't want government to touch Medicare (a government programme) and general anti-establishment people (who receive large donations from undisclosed business interests and have the support of those great anti-establishment types like ermm. Newt Gingrich and the Republican house and senate leadership)
What's crucial though is how Obama handles this even more unwieldy Congress post-November. Presidential history is often littered with mid-term reversals, after a major election. Reagan in 1982 and Clinton in 1994 for example. Although one could argue that the Democrats were generally a tame and benign bunch during the Reagan presidency and bi-partisanship was the order of the day during those times. Further, Clinton, post-1994 did use his veto pen a record number of times and also was perhaps more of an instinctive centrist than Obama. Sadly, Obama faces the worst of both worlds. The partisan climate in the US has meant that basic jobs bills, or parts of the health care act (which was virtually identical to Mitt Romney's bill in MA) or even the repeal of don't ask don't tell, have all faltered. The new band of climate-change denying, social security privatising, anti -everything that Obama says Republicans ,are not likely to cuddle up to any centre-ground, bi-partisan initiatives. Worse still, possible senators such as Sharon Angle or Joe Miller are in no way qualified to hold office, by any sane standards.
On the flip side, while gridlock may ensue, this could give Obama a chance to provide decisive leadership. He has often been criticised for leaving too much to Congress and ramming little legislation through himself. A hostile Congress could now provide him with perfect foil to rebut those criticisms. George Bush seemed to have got a lot of initiatives passed with between 51 and 55 votes, its time Obama does the same. Further, there are possibly a few Republicans in Congress, who mindful of Newt Gingrich's discrediting government shutdown in the 1990s, are likely to want to reach across the aisle so as to avoid being painted as "nay sayers" and extremists. Once again, a chance for the President to get things done, and firmly anchor himself on the centre ground, a place he will need to be to draft a coherent narrative for 2012 and avoid being a one-term President.
No comments:
Post a Comment