Election Perception

I keep hearing the media trumpeting an "overwhelming mandate" for the Democrats based on their retaking of the House and Senate; of course, if the MSM had the ability to look at anything resembling historical perspective, they would know their "mandate" blather was false hyperbole. But hey, that's what propoganda outlets do, right? And this is what blogs do: debunk media-driven conventional wisdom and get to the truth.

We'll let Charles Krauthammer start for us:

On Tuesday Democrats took control of the House and the Senate. As of this writing, they won 29 House seats (with a handful still in the balance), slightly below the post-1930 average for the six-year itch in a two-term presidency. They took the Senate by the thinnest of margins -- a one-vote majority, delivered to them by a margin of 8,942 votes in Virginia and 2,847 in Montana.

Nonetheless, the difference between taking one house vs. both -- and thus between normal six-year incumbent-party losses and a major earthquake that shakes the presidency -- was razor-thin in this election. A switch of just 1,424 votes in Montana would have kept the Senate Republican

But the great Democratic wave of 2006 is nothing remotely like the great structural change some are trumpeting. It was an event-driven election that produced the shift of power one would expect when a finely balanced electorate swings mildly one way or the other.

Do you want a "structural change"? Let's look to George Will:

The Clintons' health-care plan validated the perception that their party was gripped by both intellectual hubris and intellectual sloth -- meaning, it was still in a New Deal and Great Society frame of mind. This perception contributed to the 1994 elections, in which Republicans gained 52 House seats (and soon five more from party-switchers) -- ending 40 years of Democratic control of the House -- and eight Senate seats (plus two party-switchers).

Do you want perspective? Will, again:

Republicans should feel relieved: Considering that in November 1942, 11 months after war was thrust upon America, President Franklin Roosevelt's party lost 45 House and nine Senate seats (there were then just 96 senators), Tuesday's losses were not excessive punishment...

And while both Will and Krauthammer acknowledge the role of the mishandled Iraq war as the churner of much voter discontent, Krauthammer points out the overall success of the conservative ideal that has been expressed by this election:

Republican losses included a massacre of moderate Republicans in the Northeast and Midwest. And Democratic gains included the addition of many conservative Democrats, brilliantly recruited by Rep. Rahm Emanuel with classic Clintonian triangulation. Hence Heath Shuler of North Carolina, antiabortion, pro-gun, anti-tax -- and now a Democratic House member.
The result is that both parties have moved to the right....

Moreover, ballot initiatives make the claim of a major anti-conservative swing quite problematic. In Michigan, liberal Democrats swept the gubernatorial and senatorial races, yet a ballot initiative to abolish affirmative action passed 58 to 42 percent. Seven of eight proposed state constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage were approved. And nine states passed referendums asserting individual property rights against the government's power of eminent domain.

Not to mention (as Krauthammer does) the election of pro-war independant Joe Lieberman in a viciously anti-war blue state. So it seems as if to win back Congress, the Democrats had to move to the right (note the pro-gun vote here). So is the election a repudiation of conservative values and governance? No, just a repudiation of a Republican Party that had lost its way...

And I have a post brewing inside of me about the role the Iraq war played in the Republican's defeat, what the electorate might actually have been saying on November 7th, and what the future of American warfare ought to be. But its gonna be long, controversial, and a tad ugly. Maybe I'll save it for tomorrow, on what appears to be a long, rainy New Jersey Sunday. But its not just the Iraq war that needs to be resolved for the people to settle down; we need a discusion on how the nation must face the prospect of war in the future, and how we must fight it. Or else we are doomed to face a long string of Iraqs - one might certainlyconsider Israel's failed attack on Hezbollah, for instance, as part and parcel of the same military campaign/mindset...

But one thing is for sure - If we allow Iraq to become another Vietnam, I'd better start growing my beard long today, and figuring out which way points to Mecca. And now would be just about the right time to start sizing up my womanfolk up for their new burquas, as well....don't want to get caught in the rush...