Election of 2010: Analysis and Prospectus (Issue #476)

When the smoke finally cleared, Election Day November 2nd turned out to be about as big as conservatives could have hoped. If expectations soared unrealistically high in some areas (many hoped the GOP might retake the Senate but had to be content flipping six seats), still elsewhere those expectations were exceeded (as with the conservative sweep across the country at state level). Democrats lost control of nineteen state legislative chambers and eleven governorships. In Texas, Republicans expanded their two vote majority in the state house to almost fifty.




Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi may yet serve as Minority Leader in the U.S. House next session, but she is defanged without her Speaker’s gavel. Democrats have started to reorganize with or without White House direction, inventing an “Assistant-to-the-Leader” position basically to promote moderation inside the Democrat leadership. Considering that come January 2011 for the first time in more than six decades there will be fewer than two hundred Democrats in the House, it probably isn’t such a bad move.



The year 1994 was considered a wave election by Republicans too, but that “revolution” fizzled when President Clinton beat a very fast track back to the center. This time the wave election turned out to be a veritable tsunami—nearly twice as big with Republicans picking up 60 seats in the House. President Obama also seems far less likely to dance a soft shoe; and anyway, the Tea Party contingent of the GOP, which did not exist in 1994, will hardly be impressed. Clinton took everyone’s breath away, and even his opponents swooned when he declared ‘the Era of Big Government’ to be over. It was a lie. Now Tea Partiers and conservative stalwarts know better and won’t fall for the line again.



The mid-term election is more akin to the Reagan Revolution of 1980 in terms of its size and its professed ideological purpose. In an article by Lou Cannon appearing in Politics Daily, he attributes four factors to the results of the election in terms of Republican resurgence. Accordingly, “The first [factor] is public dismay with the slow pace of the recovery. The second and related factor is the perceived ineffectiveness of the stimulus and various government bailouts. The third is reaction to Obamacare, which the White House wrongly expected would become popular after it became law…. [and the] fourth factor, both effect and cause, is the tea party….” This litany of causal factors is more or less complete and indeed now common wisdom, except that Cannon overly limits his explanation about the tea party in his piece. The Tea Party as such, is more than just a populist reaction to the serious economic downturn. Yes it bears resemblance to other populist backlashes, except this one has a history and a serious accumulation of discontent dating back years even before the tea party movement coalesced in 2009.



The oversight is worth pointing out, because what is behind the Tea Party also offers causal explanation for the Republican tidal wave. The additional factor is correctly identified as a simmering brand of strict Constitutional construction, which has mostly been maligned, shoved aside or overlooked since the 1960s. It is an insistence no less populist but altogether separate. It is a subsurface and traditional inclination of a majority of the American people and is defensive aggressive in its nature, which explains its robust reappearance. Classically it is a response to tyranny or perceived tyranny and is a distinctive conservative lineament of political philosophy very closely aligned, by extrapolation to the Founding Fathers’ worldview. Its critique of the current social, economic and political milieu has it that government is indeed too big, and also too powerful, too intrusive, too much “in the way,” too overbearing and monitoring, as with Big Brother or the stereotypical Nanny. It is also far too costly of late, and—to the extent that the federal government no longer respects its legal and constitutional bounds, may constitute an impediment to Freedom writ large (which is after all the American project), as well as a physical and moral threat to the People themselves.



A “neo-federalist” wing of the Republican Party with direct Southern and Middle American historical roots has been kept down for years by the GOP establishment and most recently by domination of the neo-conservative wing, which reached its zenith of power during the years of George W. Bush. States rights and Tenth Amendment advocates are now demanding their day in the sun, and the intramural strife will be clearly in play as the GOP seeks next year to integrate its newfound friends in the Tea Party, much like swallowing an anaconda.



The Election of 2010 could very well herald a new era of conservative dominance, whatever its eventual stripe. While winning elections is hard work, however, it is only the first step towards what one hopes will be effective governance. Tea Party freshmen are going to Congress for a purpose, but they are going to need continuing grassroots support and a constant store of encouragement and concrete ideas to get anything done over the long haul. The enthusiasm of new Tea Party members in Congress will also eventually have to translate into specific policy actions that really do help “restore the Republic” according to the Constitution and Founders’ Intent, if that’s what they want to accomplish. Policies and legislation are most definitely required to put Americans back to work and to achieve full and sustained economic recovery—and sooner rather than later, as the Democrats found out. There is also the long and intentionally ignored political imperative that the United States must secure her borders; and then address the sheer magnitude of legal and illegal immigration, ensuring it reaches a reasonable and assimilative level.



The new kids on the block are going to have a lot of work to do. The Tea Party “revolution” could very well fizzle like others before, if they fail to repeal Obamacare or compromise too much with the president on this issue; if they are unable to get government spending under control, or reverse the trend of ballooning national debt. If the Republican Party establishment is seen to subvert the tea party effort, there will almost certainly be a third party alternative for an increasingly large number of disaffected conservative voters inside the GOP’s base, and this could portend a potential realignment or collapse of the Third American Party System.



The best thing that could emerge from the Election of 2010 is a new and more conservative consensus, marked by serious bipartisan hard work and honest efforts to address the crisis dynamics in our economy and polity. Another more likely scenario is that we could be looking at two more years of not only divided, but also gridlocked government leading up to the Election of 2012. If this happens of course, what’s hot is likely to get hotter and what’s a problem is likely to get worse. Arguably only when one of the two major parties (possibly with the help of a strong independent contingent) takes charge of two branches of government (usually the Congress and Executive Branch), does gridlock give way to a period of significant political and economic achievement—the next one presumably stamped by clear conservative branding, but only as it emerges from the Republican dustup. .