The Disconcerting Swings of America's Political Pendulum
"Barack Obama has collided with the other side of his incredible popularity: the depth of frustration is directly proportional to the scale of expectations. … the election result increases the volatility of American politics and promises new sharp turns - disappointment in 'simple' conservative prescriptions may come as fast as it did for Obama’s 'complicated' ones."
The result of the 2010
midterm elections, which have been dubbed a political earthquake, was the quickest
and most radical shift in American public sentiment since at least World War II.
Only two years ago, Democrats won a crushing victory, and not just a
quantitative one (the White House, the House
of Representatives, the Senate), but also a qualitative one. Republicans were
decimated morally - in 2009 commentators seriously wondered whether the “Grand
Old Party” would ever recover from its defeat in theaftermath
of the George W. Bush presidency.
But then the wind began
blowing in the opposite direction. The voting on November 2nd brought
Republicans the largest victory in the House of Representatives since 1948, although
they fell short of winning a majority in Senate. Republican candidates won
most of the gubernatorial races. The defeat of the president’s party during midterm
elections is not at all unusual. American voters greatly dislike monopolies on power
and are always trying - consciously or instinctively - to restore balance. This
is why periods of complete domination of both branches of government by one
party are more of an exception.
But what is surprising is the
rapidity with which sympathies of citizens rushed in the opposite direction.
According to the polls, on the eve of the election, 62 percent of Americans thought
the county is headed in the wrong direction. This is a lower figure than at the
end of Bush’s term (the figure than surpassed 80 percent), but for the current
administration, such a statistic is nearly catastrophic.
Such a convincing defeat of
Democrats wasn't expected even a few months ago, but the reasons are explainable.
Barack Obama has collided with the other side of his incredible popularity: the
depth of frustration is directly proportional to the scale of expectations. Two
years ago, commentators unanimously warned that no politician is capable of satisfying
the expectations that U.S. society attached to the ascension of its first non-White presidential nominee. But aside from
the objective trap within which the man who promised to change America has
found himself, there is also a personal factor. Even the lips of the most staunch
Obama supporters are enunciating criticism of his failure to intelligiblyexplain to the nation what he's doing and why.
The qualities that helped
Barack Obama win the 2008 campaign haven't been enough to successfully carry
out the policies he stood for. He managed quite well to “fire up” the disgruntled,
instilling in them hope for change. But to mobilize society in support of
fundamental reforms, the details of which are hardly memorable, slogans alone
are insufficient. For such a task requires either very accessible and patient
explanations or a well-established emotional contact with the audience, the
capacity to create the impression of empathy. These are powers possessed
perfectly by Bill Clinton. Strangely enough, Obama has succeeded in neither.
Despite his evident eccentricity,
which sets President Obama apart from traditional officialdom, he is an elitist.
The public increasingly sees in him an intellectual with strange ideas who is
removed from the people, not a person and doesn't embody their aspirations.
This “gap” between the
establishment and the people greatly accelerated the decline in Obama's
approval ratings. And since, under these conditions, Obama tried to take steps that
touch on some of the central issues in American politics (for instance, reforming
the health care system and refusing to double down on uncompromising U.S.
dominance of world affairs), he became a target of criticism from all sides. In
September, American cable channels never-endingly twisted an exchange at a
meeting between the president and a group of supporters, during which one of
participants told him in despair: “I'm exhausted of defending you.” [video below].
There is another aspect of the
change: the sharp polarization of American society that began under Bush, has
worsened under Obama. The country is at a crossroads in its development -
economically, politically and socially. At the same time, different social
groups have diametrically opposing ideas about what to do. The “Tea party”
movement, which emerged at the start of the midterm campaign - is the flip side
of the Obama phenomenon. Two years ago, people fatally disappointed in their leaders
voted for a candidate that was different from the other Washington insiders - even
visually. Now their sympathies have swung in the opposite direction toward every
kind of radical conservative coalition, many of which hold differing views, and
which are cemented exclusively by antipathy toward the status quo. And not just
the Democratic one, but the Republican one as well. Experts note the growing
role of so-called independent voters, meaning those who don't associate themselves
with this or that party, but vote according to the situation, switching their
support depending on the particular issue.
On the whole, this increases
the volatility of American politics and promised new sharp turns -
disappointment in “simple” conservative prescriptions may come as fast as it
did for Obama’s “complicated” ones.
On the foreign policy front,
positive changes are not to be expected. The "free hand" period for
the administration is over. It will have to look to its opponents, who take a
tough (and in the worst case, obstructionist) position on most issues. The list
of people who will determine the foreign policy agenda in Congress gives a
sense of the likely mood. Thus, the House Foreign Affairs Committee will be
headed by Ileana
Ros-Lehtinen, famous for her well-known struggle against dictators and
“communists” around the world, particularly in her native Cuba, but also in
China and Russia. In the same category is the new “tea party” star, Marco Rubio, the son of
Cuban immigrants, who has been elected to the Senate.
Also to play a leading role
in the upper house are Jon Kyl,
who says he is inclined to ratify the New START treaty only if a
whole list of additional conditions are met, Jim DeMint, a categorical
opponent of New START, and John
McCain, whose views on Moscow are well known. The likely majority leader in
the House of Representatives is Eric Cantor - a well-known
advocate of Israel and, accordingly, a representative of the most rigid wing in
respect to countries that have ties to Iran, Syria, etc. A number of other figures
in the Congressional leadership are associated with the traditional
"power" line that adheres to the notion of non-negotiable American
dominance.
Posted
by WORLDMEETS.US
Barack Obama will have to look
for ways to work with his opponents. Republicans have returned under the banner
of revising almost all that the president has done over the past two years. Many,
however, recall the experience of 1995-1996, when the Republican Party, headed
by the ideological leader of the “conservative revolution” Newt Gingrich, took
control of both houses and entered into a major confrontation with Democratic President
Bill Clinton. Then, the conservative push was so aggressive that in 1996, a
confounded electorate ultimately voted to give Clinton a second term.
The situation today is
similar, but there are significant differences. On one hand, it is unclear to
what extend Obama is ready to work under these new conditions, which will
require a greater degree of political mastery. Clinton, one of the most sophisticated
politicians ever to hold the presidency, managed to cope with the situation.
Not everyone sees such qualities in Obama. On the other hand, back then, Gingrich
was the undisputed ideological and political leader of the Republicans, “empowered”
to conduct policy in their name.
The composition of the new
Republican majority has yet to consolidate itself ideologically, and then there
is the unpredictable influence of the “tea party” enthusiasts. They will obviously
continue to influence the socio-political atmosphere, but the nature of that
influence is difficult to calculate, because the movement is extremely heterogeneous.
Accordingly, House majority leaders will find it difficult to speak on behalf
of the party as a whole. Be that as it may, it is already clear that the battle
for the White House in 2012 will be a fierce and bitter one.
*Fyodor Lukyanov is Chief Editor for Russian in Global
Affairs
