Last week’s election results were even more devastating for the Democrats (and more affirming for the Republicans) than most pundits had predicted. As final counts were still pending in several races, the GOP was guaranteed a margin in the Senate of at least 52-48, with the strong likelihood it could be as large as 55-45 in the end. The House was also a lopsided win for Republicans, with a gain of at least 14 seats on top of the 17-vote margin they had before the election.
The easy explanation for the drubbing the Democrats took would be to blame it all on a failing presidency and a bad economy, for such factors often produce bad results for the party holding the keys to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. But those factors don’t provide the answers because, while Barack Obama’s popularity has sunk to Carter-like numbers, his administration has been far from a failure. And while many Americans still don’t feel like the economy is rolling, in fact, if you just look at the numbers, it’s certainly in far better shape than it was when Mr. Obama took office.
So, how can the results be understood? Here are a few thoughts that may give comfort to the losers and provide a cautionary note to the victors.
First of all, the Democrat’s base didn’t turn out. This is not an uncommon phenomenon. In non-presidential elections, the groups that tend to support the Democrats vote less frequently and in smaller numbers. We’re talking about the young, the working poor, the unemployed, African-Americans, and generally those who benefit most from domestic policies Democrats tend to support and Republicans tend to oppose.
Why don’t they vote? In many instances, they don’t think about it. It’s easy to get up for an election when you have a presidential race. Most Americans, even high school dropouts, understand that electing the president of the country is a big deal. And if you’re going to vote for one of the candidates for that office, you might as well vote for the rest of those running from his (and someday soon her) party. Barack Obama attracted large numbers of those groups in 2008 when he helped many Democrats win election to the Senate. Many of those Senators were up for re-election this year. The House results follow the same pattern. Democrats did well in 2012 when Obama was re-elected. Most didn’t fare so well when his constituents stayed home in large numbers this year.
But adding to the low turnout for the Democrats was a decided lack of passion for the candidates and their messages. This factor was influenced heavily by a loss of faith in Mr. Obama himself, as many on the left have felt ignored, if not betrayed, by his administration’s policies and priorities. The specifics of this brief certainly include the president’s military excursions (half-hearted though his opponents on the right claim them to be). Many on the left (originally Obama’s strongest supporters because of his opposition to the Bush invasion of Iraq) are dumbfounded by the incessant drone attacks and the re-introduction of troops (in whatever capacity) in Iraq (where the president has, without Congressional authorization, effectively declared a new war in place of the one he just concluded).
But Mr. Obama has lost his base’s passion for a more fundamental reason, and that reason is at the heart of the low turnout by Democratic voters last week. Simply stated, Obama has failed to take charge of the national debate on the ideological differences between Republicans and Democrats. He has, in essence, re-assumed the persona who shocked his campaign staff in the first presidential debate in 2012. You’ll remember that one as the high point of the Romney campaign, as Obama’s seemingly insurmountable lead in the polls suddenly shrunk after his lackluster debate performance.
Obama has been a lackluster president. That fact, more than any other, explains the disenchantment with him within his party and the loss of confidence in him by those in the middle, those who look for a true leader, irrespective of his ideological identity. Obama has defaulted on the bully pulpit part of his job. He just hasn’t seemed to care about it, for whatever reasons.
Historians in looking back may plumb the Obama personality and find reasons for his lack of engagement with the American people. Perhaps they will discover a man who really yearned to be a law school professor, or a community organizer, or a policy wonk, or perhaps they will find a man who was always too conflicted by the opposing perspectives he was so good at seeing. Whatever they will find, it won’t change the fact that after six years in office, Obama still hasn’t grasped the real power of the presidency.
He said in the days following his party’s massive defeat last week that he took full responsibility for the losses, citing Harry Truman’s famous line, “the buck stops here.” It’s a pat phrase, one appropriate for the occasion, but as I listened to him mouthing it, I saw a lack of understanding of what the failure of responsibility really was. I think the man really thinks he is misunderstood or that he is unfairly maligned by Fox News. Both of those facts are true, but a strong president, one who saw the power at his disposal to educate the populace, to debunk his critics, to rally the troops, would never have let them get the upper hand.
So, yes, the election results can be attributed to Obama’s failed leadership. But what about the Republicans? Are they really now the majority party in the hearts of the American people?
I doubt it. They have large majorities in Congress and in state legislatures, but their policies aren’t in synch with most Americans, and once the country is faced with a clear choice on direction (in 2016 to be precise), the status quo ante will again prevail. And if the Republican presidential candidate then is a Koch-brothers anointee, Hillary Rodham Clinton, or whomever the Democrats choose to mouth their left-of-center prescriptions for the country, will prevail again, with relative ease.