So what did the midterm election results really signify?

Great Debates
1

From the left-of-the-Dems In These Times:

Also from INT:

From almost-as-lefty The Nation:

From the closest-thing-the-Dem-Party-has-got-to-an-official-organ American Prospect:

Meanwhile, Pubs and conservatives are insisting that so many of the new Dems elected were really DINO centrists or conservatives that the election does not really herald any major shift in the minds and will of the voters, only frustration with W’s Iraq policies and a few timely scandals on the Pub side.

What do you read into this particular historical inkblot?

2

I personally don’t read this as a big shift away from free trade. The last two election cycles have been dominated by national security, while the economy took a back seat. With economic conditions being ‘bad but not that bad’, the Democrats had trouble rabble-rousing on economic populist issues such as job losses. The public has favored Democratic economic policy since before the '04 election, but in '04 they heavily favored the Republicans on security. The big change from '04 to '06 was on that issue, where Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, and the port security fiasco hurt the Republicans.

Speaker Pelosi has made it clear that she intends to curtail Democratic proposals in the coming two years. An ambitious leftward move, such as socialized health care or major tariffs on imports, would be just what the Republicans want to paint the new arrivals as liberal extremists. Keeping to popular ideas such as higher minimum wage and student loan relief is the ticket for now.

3

A small subtle change wrapped inside a loud shiny one.

The loud shiny one is the erosion of the myth of The Leader. We dream that inside some men is a diamond of pure character, only awaiting a dreadful crisis to burn away the dross of mediocrity and create…The Leader. 9/11 drove us nuts, and as part of that insanity we attributed a character of greatness to an entirely mediocre man, who was only too happy to accept our estimation as fact. And our craving for security and vengeance played perfectly into the hands of unscrupulous men who exploited it for every drop of power they could squeeze from it. Good men were slandered and hounded, disagreement and dissent became treason. The debacle in Iraq is directly founded in these facts.

We were nuts, and we’re getting better. The Emperor has no flight suit. A criminal underground of terror cannot be defeated by picking an enemy and crushing him. We have suffered a terrible thing, and we have done a terrible thing. We went nuts, and now we’re recovering.

There is a small, incremental change hidden within that, a move away from intolerance and a move away from the corporatist mindset that values MBAs over teachers. Ever so slightly. I am a radical who doesn’t trust revolution, I don’t trust sudden change, what can change one way in a moment can change the opposite in the same moment. But the gradual move towards acceptance and compassion is real and sustainable, however fragile.

For instance, an example. When the tighty rightys for Jesus made such a fuss and stink over gay marriage they rushed to display the horror! the horror! of men marrying men and women marrying women. Look! they gasped, men in tuxedos marrying other men in tuxedos just like a normal wedding!

But what America saw was normal people doing something very normal. That might be Uncle Fred there, that might be Aunt Bea. Their eyes don’t gleam red with corruption, they have no scales, they are just…people. Minor changes, but permanent.

This is one example, there are any number of them. This time, the rock didn’t roll all the way back down the hill. Hurrah!

There is, as well, the empowerment of the Dems to investigate, to overturn rocks and open cans of worm. Likely to result in the wholesale massacre of the neocon and theocon politicos. Thats pretty cool too. Yeah, I like that.

4

While many of the new Democrats may be conservative in terms of abortion and gay marriage, they all are far to the left of the people they replaced on economic issues. Six increases in minimum wage passed the states, so that is a winner for Pelosi to introduce in January.

Security was important since it wiped out the only area where Republicans had an advantage. People woke up to the fact that Bush has not made us safer.

Despite the moaning about how great the economy was by the Republicans before the election, the mass of voters seemed to be saying it wasn’t good for them. Maybe they’ve woken up to the fact that making rich people richer does not help the middle class?

BTW, ITR champion, no one is proposing “socialized” healthcare. It would be great if there was a move to a single payer system, but before that happens I hope the Dems sign up Ford and GM and the other companies whose competitiveness is getting crushed by our health care disaster. A good chunk of Big Business behind a proposal would help silence the “socialism” nonsense. I don’t think that was one of the messages in this election, though.

5

Eh, I wouldn’t characterize support for increasing the Federal minimum wage as a “far to the left” economic position. The reality is that almost all states have minimum wages higher than the Federal minimum wage.

A slightly higher minumum wage is small potatoes, I wouldn’t be pushing it but I wouldn’t bother fighting it either. If the “economic populists” can be bought off with a minumum wage hike instead of playing the xenophobia card, fine.

6

For my part, I think its quite simple…the elections simply meant people were fed up with the Republicans and wanted a change. I think the left wingers, seeing this as a sign, are delusional. I don’t think this signals some shift in the US toward the left…or even a shift from the right (though I don’t think most American’s were or are on the right) either. Its simple that folks were tired of the 'Pubs.

Now…the Dem’s COULD use this, if they are smart, to rule wisely and well and to begin such a shift leftward in the future. But IMHO if the Dem’s think that this shows that the voters have shifted left and so decide to push through a left wing agenda they are going to get a cold dose of reality…and the 'Pub’s will be making up ground lost in the next election cycle.

JMHO there.

-XT

7

I agree with a lot of what 'lucy says. It’s mostly dissatisfaction with Iraq and disenchantment with Bush. I don’t know that it’s all that ideological except for probably some irritation with creeping theocracy. The insane amount of spending and exportation of jobs had something to do with it too.

I don’t take the election as evidence that the masses are about to start wearing sandals and smoking pot and listening to Tracy Chapman CD’s, but I do see it as evidence that they are less inclined to see the Republicans as carrying the banner for all moral good anymore.

8

I made that statement in another thread and was corrected-- it’s not that most states have a higher MW, but most Americans live in states with a higher MW. Slight difference. But I had to laugh at the congresscritter I heard yesterday saying that it was time for a raise in the MW, especially since so many states are already raising it. Huh???

As I noted in another thread, this wasn’t about a shift to the center or electing conservative Democrats, it was about populism and pragmatism. Does that clear everything up? :slight_smile:

Yeah, this was a big: We want a different strategy in Iraq and we’re sick of sleezy Republicans. Oh, and Bush is a poopypants.

Bush was never seen as “The Leader”. He barely squeaked by in two elections, and didn’t even win the popular vote in the first one.

9

It’s hardly a far left position - just more to the left than the current Congress is. Considering that there hasn’t been one for ten years, and thus the minimum wage corrected for inflation has fallen, this is hardly a radical piece of legislation. We’ll see which Republicans are still sticking with the “if it’s good for business it’s good for you” argument, which hasn’t worked out too well for most of the public the past six years.

10

I think a minimum wage hike is both populist and pragmatic…hardly a far left proposition.

11

I agree. Did someone in this thread thread say it was “far left proposition”?

12

Not yet. Premptive strike. Little trick we learned from the Republicans.

13

It means lots of people voted for Democrats who previously voted for Republicans. Beyond that, get out the Ouija board if you want to “know” more. :smack:

14

Voyager’s post could have been read that way, but knowing his politics, I was pretty sure that he didn’t mean it that way:

15

Yup…I’ve posted similar thoughts in other related threads. This was most definitely not some Liberal Mandate to go fourth and enact a radical agenda. Attempting something like that will just hand control back to the Pubs in 08.

The Dems can make some changes, but they’ve got to pick their battles wisely. Popular measures that benefit the middle and lower income brackets will help them establish an identity. If they want the White House in 08, this is the time to start defining what the Democratic Party stands for…

16

It would also be just what the Dems need to show the people that “liberal extremism” is not a thing to be feared.

17

I know! Lets just extend the Republican philosophy under Democratic rule! We’ll just do exactly the same things they would do, and then they won’t say nasty stuff about us!

18

Okay, this is a genuine question and not a snark: what “popular measures that benefit the middle and lower income brackets” are there that will not be portrayed by conservatives as a “radical agenda”? Besides tax cuts, that is?

I’m doubtless somewhat biased, but ISTM that the pro-little-guy kitchen-table economic-populism issues that you seem to be recommending are exactly what the right has been doing its damnedest over the past several years to paint as dangerous liberal extremism.

Universal health care plan? Socialism! Raising the minimum wage? Sabotaging our economy! Social services, unemployment benefits, etc.? More socialism! Labor law enforcement and environmental protections? Anti-corporate overregulatory madness! Plus economic sabotage! “Fair trade” policies, job creation, etc.? Protectionism! Allowing the estate tax repeal to sunset? More socialism, now with class warfare!

I tend to agree that the recent Democratic victory wasn’t really a mandate for anything more radical than some increased common sense and honesty in government, plus some less elitist domestic policies that will give a boost to the non-wealthy. But what policies of that sort are there that the conservative establishment will get behind?

ISTM that in recent years, the right has largely hitched its domestic-policy wagon to reviling such economic-populist measures as “socialism”. What’s going to happen now if the Dems actually try to enact such measures? Will their more conservative colleagues go along, or will there be kicking and screaming?

I agree, but ISTM that conservatives in general have only recently become somewhat reconciled to the prospect. We had a thread just a little over a year ago in which it was discussed, and a couple of the more conservative posters around here were dubious or negative about it:

19

About time we rehabilitated the word, then. As well as talking about “class warfare” as a good thing, which it is.

20

My theory is that the American public will be receptive to things that put money in their pocket. Raising the minimum wage, student loan relief, prescription drug coverage, hopefully fixing that trainwreck of a bankruptcy bill from last year…things like that will be popular, and I don’t think the GoP will get much momentum going against it.

On the other hand, if the Dems were to introduce “The Omnibus Gay Marriage, Gun Control, Abortion on Demand, Marijuana Legalization, Anti-Jesus and Free Fellatio for Terrorists Act of 2007”, they’ll be out on their ass in 08.

As things stand now, the Pubs can tell the God Squad to have a heaping cup of STFU. Catering to them, in part, got Pubbie ass kicked from sea to shing sea. Karana bless America. Pubbies that want to get reelected have a strong incentive to move towards the center…and get behind a few things that won’t really piss off the God Squad. Things like a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage are dead on arrival at the Hill for the next couple of terms anyway. I don’t expect to see many of them introduced. The God Squad vote is probably not going to go to the Dems anyway…the Pubbies just don’t want them starting a Jesus Party to split the expected Pubbie vote.