This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon, Feb. 3, 2010 - In his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama came out swinging. He recognized and validated the considerable anger abroad in the land. Stepping away from his almost professorial style, he attempted to staunch the movement of independents away from him and his party.
Republican gubernatorial wins in Virginia and New Jersey and, particularly, the loss of Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat in Massachusetts was a wake-up call for the president and for Democratic candidates everywhere. Just a year ago, Democrats were ebullient. They controlled Congress and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and their new president was committed to change.
How did the ball drop so fast and what are the ramifications for November’s midterm elections, including a senate seat in Missouri up for grabs?
The financial crisis, the Great Recession, occurred in the waning days of the Bush administration. But the opprobrium associated with it has stuck to Obama. It is on Obama’s watch that Wall Street firms that received government bailout funds became infamous for paying out huge bonuses. His top economic advisers had ties to Goldman Sachs and to the deregulation at least partially responsible for the crisis.
Obama passed the expensive stimulus package early in his term and yet the number of jobless is higher now than when he took office. Many have lost their jobs and/or their homes and everyone knows someone whom the crisis has affected. The bank bailout and the rescue of General Motors and Chrysler astonished many observers. They saw the government assisting Wall Street but not so clearly Main Street. The growing federal deficit reached the trillions.
If Bush and then Obama had not acted, unemployment would be worse and credit could be nonexistent. But most people reacted to a welfare for the rich at the expense of future generations.
Republican invective and the anti-Obama barrages from rightwing talk radio have also had an effect on a skeptical electorate. Fox News helped to organize the Tea Party demonstrations that called for taking the country back from Obama’s legislative agenda. At the same time, Obama devoted the lion’s share of his attention to health care while the public worried about the growing unemployment.
His cool demeanor did not assuage the fears rampant in the land. Tea parties and talk radio played into the traditional American antipathy toward an enhanced government role. Similarly, they cut into public sentiment for health care by mentioning death panels and government coming between people and their doctor.
Because of their majorities, one might expect the Democrats to have had an easier path pushing their agenda. But there is no party discipline. Democrats fall into disparate camps: progressives, blue dogs, pro-choice, pro-life and more. Getting votes in the Congress is like herding cats, particularly on significant change legislation. Beginning with the stimulus package, the Republicans chose to oppose every Obama initiative and, unlike their Democratic peers, they have moved in harmony. In every instance, they have decried governmental growth.
The bailouts and the reaction to them affected the reception to health care reform. Jobs polled as the number one issue, not a further accretion of federal authority for health care. Although 40 million Americans are uninsured, those with Medicare or employer-based insurance saw no need for a radical change to the system with a concomitant increase in the power of the federal government. American political culture is not often hospitable to governmental expansion. As Thomas Paine said, “That government is best which governs least.”
It has been a year of overload, and greedy Wall Street and expansive government became linked in the eyes of many. Three recent Republican victors were amiable candidates who were not tied to the Washington system. But they tapped into the anger abroad in the land and have caused Democrats to fear significant midterm losses.
The fear may affect Republican incumbents as well. John McCain is being challenged on the right by a talk show host and once popular Gov. Crist in Florida has to contend with a more conservative challenger as he tries to move to the Senate. Missouri experienced the angry disruptions of congressional and senatorial meetings on health care reform that occurred in many states. Interestingly, Missouri’s U.S. Senate race features a Washington insider, Roy Blunt, who has been part of the Republican leadership and tied to lobbyists against Robin Carnahan who has spent no time inside the Beltway. If the mood is anti-Washington and not just anti-Democrat, this could be a very interesting race.
The cacophony from the right may continue to stoke the anger in the land as will additional job losses. A huge governmental debt and recent intrusions into the marketplace have furthered the distrust of independents, in keeping with American tradition. The table is not set for the November elections yet nationally or in Missouri. Fear will continue to set the tone. Incumbency may be no blessing for some Democrats or Republicans in this volatile period.
Lana Stein is a professor emerita of political science at the University of Missouri - St. Louis.