Wednesday, November 3, 2010

Concerning the American Anger

So the Republicans took over the House of Representatives, but not the Senate.  They won several state gubernatorial elections.  However, I think this is far from a "notable" victory.

"The American people", so-called by whoever wins the election that year, are vacillating.  Heavily shifting between parties, trying desperately to figure out who is speaking the truth, and who is going to give them the best option for personal safety and security.  Look at 2006, for instance, and 2008.  Then, the Republican president had gone too far in one direction, seeking aggressive expansion in the world sphere, especially the Middle East, and negative results bogged him, and his party, down.  He lost control of Congress for the rest of his presidency.  Then, the GOP lost the presidency.  "The American people" had spoken...but really, anyone with a decent political understanding realized that people didn't want to see what McCain might do different than Bush.  They already knew it would be much similar.  So, they decided to take Barack Obama.  It was time for a change, everyone said.  Nobody really cared what sort of change.

Two years later, Barack Obama has lost control of the House of Representatives, and the supermajority in the Senate is now gone.  However, this revolution/Divine Mandate (vox populi, vox Dei!) is hardly a rousing cry that attracted everyone to a "Don't Tread on Me" banner, and vote to be led by a bunch of hatchet-bearing Indians dumping fragrant leaves into Boston Bay.  Look at New York, for example.  Never mind that it is a bastion of Democratic leadership.  Both incumbent Democratic senators rolled over their Republican counterparts.  Landslide victories there, landslide victory in the gubernatorial campaign.  In the same county where Carl Paladino (GOP) gained a majority of the vote, Rep. Brian Higgins (D) got 60%.  Discrepancy, I'll say.  Seems more like Paladino had the home-town support, rather than a rousing Erie County Republican uprising.  Harry Reid won in Nevada; sure, it was a nail-biter for him, but he still is Majority Leader in the Senate.  No harm done for him.  Delaware held blue, not that it was a challenge given how badly prepared the competition was.

If there is a change in the winds, it is slow in coming, and slow in taking effect.  More than enough people are content with voting "party line".  There is a small percentage of Americans who are 1) willing to change allegiances, and 2) stay informed as to the best choice for office.  Forget that most people neglect to come out and vote in the first place.  What one notices in American politics is a sense of oligarchy: the same people come out, year after year, to run for office.  If they lose, it is a blow, but they always have jobs waiting as political analysts, party chairpersons, and so forth.  Take Eliot Spitzer, disgraced governor of NYS.  Now, he is on CNN, running a talk show as a co-host.  Not a bad grab for a hypocrite who signed laws against corruption and prostitution with one hand, and with the other was paying top dollar for the best call-girl he could get.  With such people running for office, it is often less of a question of who people want being elected, as much as whom people think is least dangerous. 

And so this continues.  80% of voters (who turn out) usually do not change party affiliations, regardless of the circumstance.  The 20% who comprise the real race between candidates are partly composed of the centrists/moderates, and partly of apathetic party-liners whom the candidates persuade to vote.  There is little of real debating going on.  There is a good deal of posturing. 

Be angry, America.  Be angry for not having done enough, or having lost what you had gained.  A few years, a few change economic changes, and the people who voted you in, or out, will be more than willing to reverse the vote and keep the snowball rolling.

No comments: