|
It was big night in politics last night, but the major media falling over themselves to declare this the year of anti-incumbents is a bit much. First, the huge loss of Arlen Spector must be put into context: he was not an incumbent, in the true sense. He was trying to start over, after thirty plus years in the Senate, as a Democrat. Moreover, he was unable to come up with a strong explanation of why he switched parties, other than he decided he couldn’t win the primary against a far right Republican. His opponent in the Democratic party didn’t have those problems, because he ran a strong race against Spector six years ago when Spector was a Republican and he, Sestak, was very much a Democrat. Rand Paul, the Tea Party hero in Kentucky, was not running against an incumbent.
The only race that involved the traditional notion of an incumbent was Senator Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas. She has to face a run off election in June. She has been attacked by unions and more liberal Democrats for being a near Republican, so they want her out.
Anyway, this is a year when it is dangerous for anyone to be running for office in the House or Senate, especially those who voted for the massive Wall Street bailouts and the loans to the auto industry. Who wouldn’t be upset and angry? The banks are robbing ordinary citizens blind with fees on top of fees, high interest rate credit cards and they participated in one of the most massive financial frauds in world history, the phony mortgage mess that came crashing down in 2008. For this, and much more, they get taxpayer money to stay in business?
If one could enter “none of the above” as a candidate this year, it would be a big hit with the voters. The “turn them all out” sentiment is very strong. You don’t really need the polls to prove it. Something (what?) went very, very wrong with the American economy a year and a half ago, and man people who don[‘t understand why it happened, or why it was allowed to happen, clearly want to express their displeasure. Remember, though, that this was one of the many reasons Obama was put in the White House. He was running as the economy took a nose dive.
It is too bad that all of this negative energy has not, as of yet, been channeled into ideas and policy. The Tea Party concept of shrinking the government, whatever that means, is a 60 year old issue that is highly unlikely, and even less likely to work, in the 21st century. That debate, in short, was more or less settled a long time ago. We live in a complex, difficult world and, short of going back to 50 bickering states and corporate dominance of every aspect of our lives, we need a strong national government. If it were removed as a major factor in American life, those who had worked to remove it would cry for it back again, immediately.
Can the power of the national government be moderated? Well, the problem is that in difficult times, we need that power, that mediation of conflicting interests, more than ever. Plus, and the Tea Party people never seem to stop and consider this, if you were to start stripping away on a serious level at the national government, you’d start losing a lot of things that people like and want, like Medicare, Social Security, subsides to farmers to keep them in business and, eventually, a strong national defense. Plus, in a democracy, you don’t get to cherry pick what you like and kill off everything else without paying a price. A big price. There is no reason to believe that only the programs you don’t like would be the ones cut.
Make no mistake, however, Washington, DC, is shaking in its boots right now. The fear of what the people have in store is probably higher now than at any time in many decades, maybe since the aftermath of Watergate when the fear was mainly limited to Republicans. Unpredictability is the word of the moment. The Democrats held on to an important House seat in Pennsylvania last night, the seat once held by the late John Murtha, so they have reason to believe that Joe Sestak could win the Senate seat in that state in the fall. They know, however, everyone knows, it is going to be a long bumpy ride. Both major political parties are likely to take strong hits in the fall.
Doug Terry, 5.19.10
|
|
