Warning: there is a lot of "No, we won't" out there
I'm just as excited by Senator Obama's victory as anyone else who has never experienced a great President in his or her lifetime (I was born midway through Eisenhower's second term), but all this "the nation is transformed" talk has got to stop. Or at least, if you need to say it, don't actually drink the Kool-Aid.
It is true that Senator Obama's 52% to 46% victory over Senator McCain was decisive, and, were the media to characterize the result in a manner consistent with the way Republican victories of this magnitude have been described (dream on), then it would properly be called a mandate.
However, as the Center for the Study of the American Electorate reports, voter turnout was, at most, 61.7% of eligible voters (one percent higher than 2004). That means that Senator's Obama's 56% of those who voted represents only 34.6% of eligible voters (more than Bush, true, and much more than Clinton, but hardly a number anything like the "country on the wrong track" numbers).
I don't for a second believe that this means that the President-elect should not proceed aggressively. On the contrary, I have argued that Democrats should not give up where they fail to achieve the 60 votes needed for cloture, but should instead challenge Republican "dead-enders" to follow through on full-blown filibuster.
It concerns me, though, that I am hearing a lot of wishful thinking from people who seem to believe that the bad guys are either already transformed, or else will courteously play the role of fair-minded opposition.
In fact, the bad guys have not been transformed (and will continue to fight dirty), and the ranks of the indifferent remain enormous (and will continue to be susceptible to MSM spin). In short, we must continue to guard against complacency: the struggle has just begun.
This is also a moment for those who do believe in Senator Obama's call for a new American community to be especially vigilant against the already visible signs of self-interest being promoted over the broader common interest (see both the individual scramble for jobs, and the organizational or "constituency-based" scramble for a piece of the pie).
I would be ecstatic if more people truly believed in the principle of "one community, no exclusion," but, even at this moment of triumph, I don't hear that particular element of Senator Obama's message being trumpeted by enough of even the 56% of those who voted with him.
Advertisement
Well, Democrats have their constituencies too like the enviornmnental lobby and Trial Lawyers and unions. You think they're not going to be acting out of self-interest with Obama?
The real issue is the Big Tent the Democrats have erected. You've got Democrats from some very conservative districts and states, so it will be interesting to see how party unity is applied. We shouldn't expect this majority to hold past this election. There are simply too many seats to defend, so they better get what they want now.
November 6, 2008 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the poster is saying the Dems' constituencies already are lining up at the trough, and that that's a problem.
But, hey, what does everybody have against trial lawyers? It's trial lawyers this and trial lawyers that, and then when you get hurt it's "huh, I think I need a good trial lawyer."
You make a good point about party unity. It's going to be an integral part of successfully legislating aggressively. They're both real issues, and they are yoked together.
November 7, 2008 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good point about trial lawyers. Want to know why you don't hear about entire wedding parties dying when a floor caves in under the weight of dancing at a wedding hall? Trial lawyers. Not Ralph Nader, trial lawyers. Want to know why we have the safest baby products in the world? Trial lawyers. Want to know why our buildings don't cave like a deck of cards in an earthquake? Trial lawyers.
November 7, 2008 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Damn, I didn't realize Trial Lawyers were super heros. They've saved us all. You left out the fact that lawyers are also the reason we have a 7000 page tax code that nobody can figure out.
You can use medicine as an analogy. When taken in proper doses, it benefits the body but can be lethal in large doses.
Too little power in the hands of independent lawyers -- you get an authoritarian China. Too much power in the hands of trial lawyers, you get an out of control litigious society where anyone who feels "emotionally damaged" can sue for any reason. The ACLU can sue a cash-strapped school system for putting the word Christmas (the legal holiday name) on a school calender. Is this real justice or justice gone awry?
November 7, 2008 8:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent back and forth which both points out the wonderful things law provides, and why we all hate lawyers at the same time!
(And yes, I'm hatin' on myself, a CT lawyer)
November 7, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh... hogwash. It's in the best interest of elected officials - in a democracy - to make sure onsumer products and infrastructure are built more safely. Otherwise, they're voted out of their jobs - or worse. They didn't need the machinations of dollar-chasing shysters to spur them along. Lawyers are pimarily responsible for fewer public events (who can afford the insurance bond?) and a more antagonistic world ("God help you if my li'l bastard falls off your backyard swing! I'll SUE"). We need to be less litigious; we'd get there with fewer lawyers.
November 7, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
First you say it's the trial lawyers who are "pimarily responsible for fewer public events (who can afford the insurance bond?) and a more antagonistic world" ... But then you say "We need to be less litigious..."
Is it the trial lawyers or their clients who are responsible? Or the insurance companies, maybe? Perhaps we do need to be less litigious, but I don't think the trial lawyers are forcing us to sue each other. I tend to think insurance may be the root of all evil.
November 7, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
C'mon you know lawyers troll for clients. They're all over tv now begging an accident victim to call them.
Commerical trucking firms pay for EVERY accident regardless of who is at fault these days, because they know a jury will most likely rule against them. Well, this leads to higher prices for every product that has to be shipped.
November 8, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you have to look at the issues. Universal Healthcare is an inclusive issue, and I've argued numerous times that it's also ironically pro-business: businesses aren't good at it, and it interferes with a smooth flow of work talent for non-work related reasons.
Getting out of Iraq? Even conservatives don't seem to be particularly happy about being there, just that they have trouble acknowledging they screwed up.
Fixing the economy? That's one I hope we get a bit more inclusive than just handing out fast and big cash to Wall Street.
So please get more specific on your complaints. I think there's a pro-union bill people are hankering for that might be a more partisan-interest issue, but issues like SCHIP and improved education and bringing down the deficit are inclusive issues. The problem with the last 8 years has been that the Republicans focused on exclusive my-way-or-the-highway stances towards partisan goals. We don't have to approve more of their partisan goals to be properly inclusive and bi-partisan.
November 7, 2008 6:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Warning: there is a lot of "No, we won't" out there"
Most who understand the sorry state of American governance today would expect this.
One would think Americans would understand by now that voting was just the beginning of any hope for change. One would hope it is finally understood that we must participate more, keep a very watchful eye on Congress, and promptly replace leaders (especially leaders in Congress where the laws are made) who show they can not or will not get together and make the substantial changes we need and want.
No President can make positive changes that represent the people's interests unless the people are right there to raise their voices and back their own interests. If the public is silent, the voices of small groups will continue to be what is heard echoing in the halls of Congress and the Oval Office.
Our form of government necessitates that for good governance we must participate as well as remove and hold bad leaders accountable. If we don't hold one leader accountable, why on earth would the next leader care what the public things or worry about doing a good, honorable job?
A majority of today's leaders protect the status quo of no accountability to such an extreme extent that they don't even want the public to discuss holding Bush accountable, much less will they take steps to do so themselves.
November 7, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, please, let us at least enjoy a bit of idealistic joy here! It may not last. There may be many nay-sayers, but I swear to God I need this moment. I really need it. I'm 63. I've seen a lot of disappointments. But I still have hope. And I rejoice in this moment!
November 7, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I also saw somewhere that gun sales have gone increased since 11/4. I hope it is a myth but it wouldn't surprise me, and I wouldn't doubt that it is mainly people who heard Sarah who are doing it.
By The Way, I disagree with the idea over at TPM that Sarah knows Africa is a continent. Why would she know that? She hasn't thought about anything outside of Alaska for her adult life. I am not surprised at all to hear she didn't know. Who in the world could make that up? He depth of knowledge is so sketchy, we would all be amazed by the lapses -- amazed but not surprised.
November 7, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the contrary, I have argued that Democrats should not give up where they fail to achieve the 60 votes needed for cloture, but should instead challenge Republican "dead-enders" to follow through on full-blown filibuster.
Yes, this. It's extremely frustrating that the mere threat of a filibuster is enough to derail things. If they feel strongly enough about it to stand up there and talk for hours, let them. Don't just assume that they will talk until you cave, make them talk until you cave. And be sure to grab the good bits from CSPAN and paper them all over YouTube.
Make them pick their battles.
November 7, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Public opinion has to weigh in here as well. At least on drilling Dems are standing against public opinion polls. 75% want more drilling. So, if the GOP filibusters a new energy bill -- it could actually make them gain traction.
Again, if the Dems fall prey to arrogance and "we know what's good for you" legislation, they'll only hold this majority another 24 months.
Barbara Boxer's energy bill is a looming disaster. It raises the cost of electricity, home heating, and prices at the pump -- all in the name of producing "green" energy with unproven technologies. It is the most bone-headed legislation pending, right now, but she is going to try and ram it through.
November 9, 2008 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink