The Midterm Elections Are Not About the Republican Tea Party

September 30, 2010 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (6)

The always insightful E.J. Dionne and Dan Balz offer a bit of contrarian wisdom in the local paper today. There are signs, they say, that Democrats are stirring. And not a moment too soon. Early voting is about to start. The election is upon us.

[Read more about the 2010 elections.]

But though I won't be flabbergasted if the Democrats retain narrow control of both houses of Congress, I would caution my Democratic friends against any highs of joy, or despair. The Democrats won two big elections in 2006 and 2008, and preside over a ravaged economy. Politics runs in cycles. It's a midterm election. The opposition is going to pick up a lot of seats. Forget all the chatter about the Tea Party phenomenon. Nothing hurts a party in power like declining personal income.

And that is why I urge caution about reading too much into the November results. The American people did not, in 2006 and 2008, decide they were socialists, and then change their minds and become Tea Party Republicans in 2010. We are largely a pragmatic and independent-minded people, looking for leaders who will get results. If the economy begins to chug next year (and barring some seismic disaster like Katrina or 9/11), like Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan before him Barack Obama will get his second term.

Historical precedents have their limits but I well remember 1982, the last time we voted in such a severe economic downturn. For all his political victories over Tip O'Neill in 1981, the only evidence of economic revival in that election season were a few signs of movement in the stock market, and Ronald Reagan lost his ideological majority in the House. Two years later, Reagan had cut his Social Security deal with O'Neill, the economy had bounced back, and the president cruised to his "Morning in America" landslide, over a Democratic nominee who had run left in the primaries to secure his base.

Much of what Obama has undertaken—Iraq, Afghanistan, healthcare and financial reform, the stimulus bills, saving the automobile industry--have been tough, necessary tasks. Obama had to address these issues, much like Reagan had to take his medicine, and watch as the Federal Reserve crushed inflation. In many cases, Obama has continued policies put in place by George W. Bush. And Sen. John McCain would have done much the same. [See where McCain gets his campaign money.]

[See a photo gallery of Bush’s legacy.]

The Tea Party may not participate, but there is still a fact-based America out there, comprised of scientists and businessmen and experts and skilled bureaucrats and educators and young innovators and entrepreneurs who are governed by evidence and reason and thought, and not impulse. The hard work of providing a comprehensive, affordable health and retirement system for American companies and workers (like those in place in the rest of the industrial world), of rescuing the American manufacturing sector and dealing with energy demands, and of raising some taxes and cutting some benefits to address the debt will all continue. The world won't wait for Christine O'Donnell, birther fantasies, or Glenn Beck conspiracies. Eventually, reality prevails.

Tags:
Iraq,
recession,
Tea Party,
Tip O'Neill,
Congress,
2010 Congressional elections,
Glenn Beck,
2008 Congressional elections,
2008 presidential election,
John McCain,
George W. Bush,
deficit and national debt,
national security terrorism and the military,
economy,
War in Afghanistan (2001-),
Bill Clinton,
unemployment,
Ronald Reagan,
economic stimulus,
Iraq war (2003-2011),
Afghanistan,
Democratic Party,
Christine O'Donnell,
Barack Obama,
Republican Party

Reader Comments Read all comments (6)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

eom

Sam of MO 4:46PM October 01, 2010

The author refers to the Tea Party and "scientists, businessmen, and experts", apparently implying that there are no highly educated people in the Tea Party. Wrong. I don't know about "experts", but there are plenty of scientists, businessmen, and engineers either in the Tea Party, or who sympathize with the Tea Party. The attraction is simple. As the U.S. becomes more socialist, it slides down the continuum towards a gov't-controlled economy, which is ultimately less successful than a free-market economy (just ask the Soviet Union). If you weaken the free-market economy, there is less money for everyone, including gov't, to spend (to paraphrase Obama, "a falling tide strands all boats").

There is also a lot of common sense in not spending money that you don't have, which is a very simple concept for the average person to wrap their mind around. That's what this recession has been about. Greedy homeowners going crazy with gigantic mortgages, flipping houses, massive home improvement projects to keep up with the Jones', etc. Then to add insult to injury, the gov't bails these foolish people out, lets them walk away from mortgages, etc. The free market economy is not about unbridled greed backed by the gov't in case something should go wrong. Should we also bail out people who lose money in Vegas? This was magnified when the gov't bailed out Wall Street and we got to watch companies hand out huge bonuses to their executives with no oversight.

The comment about "skilled bureaucrats" made me laugh. You mean, like the ones who caught Enron cooking the books? No, that was a high school teacher. How about the ones who stopped Bernie Madoff in his tracks for running what turned out to be a rather obvious Ponzi scheme? No, those bureaucrats weren't doing their job, either. How about the ones that closely monitored BP's decisions during drilling operations and prevented the blowout that killed eleven and caused the greatest oil spill in American history? Oops. I'm sure there are a few skilled bureaucrats in gov't, but they are far outnumbered by people who show up to work and collect a paycheck, doing the minimum to keep their jobs. (Kinda like union workers.)

Yep. The solution to inept bureaucrats, according to democrats, . . . is more bureaucrats! Just like the solution to businesses strangled by government regulation and unions (high cost and low efficiency) is more regulation and more unions.

The republicans understand some of these issues. But recently, they have shown themselves far too willing to spend their way out of an insignificant problem. All politicians avoid even discussing major problems, like peak oil, fresh water shortages, Social Security insolvency, etc. So the incumbents have to go. When enough incumbent republicans are voted out, the remainder will get the message and stop spending our money, or at least spend it on the solving the big issues.

chem E of FL 10:30AM October 01, 2010

The midterm elections are a referendum on Obama/Union's radical agenda of

"reidstributing the wealth" and the unions desire to gain control of private corporations. Americans better pay attention and vote out this radical agenda.

paul of OH 8:15PM September 30, 2010

John A. Farrell

John A. Farrell

John Aloysius Farrell is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report. An award-winning Washington reporter, he has written for The Boston Globe and The Denver Post and is the author of Tip O’Neill and the Democratic Century and an upcoming biography of the great American defense attorney, Clarence Darrow.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

JFK's Virtuoso Turn at the Bully Pulpit

Kennedy presented a radical idea: Peaceful coexistence.

Latest Videos

advertisement