In less than two weeks, those few Americans who didn't vote early will vote and we'll finally elect a new president. The pundit class, particularly those with center-right leanings, aren't waiting for that time. They understand that 1) they're likely to lose (knock on wood); 2) losing invites the barbarian hordes into Washington; and 3) this is unacceptable. So, if you can't win the election, what do you do? You win the second election--the one that determines the meaning of the canvass.
It shouldn't be hard to figure out the meaning of this election, right? Say Obama wins (Cross your fingers). He's campaigned for nearly two years. He's given more speeches than he probably can count; he's participated in better than two dozen debates; and he has a website with heavily detailed policy positions. If he wins (knock on wood AND cross your fingers), he'll take office having laid out a clear policy agenda--no more Iraqs, universal health care, alternative energy, tax cuts for those under 250k a year, tax increases for those above, etc.--and, with a Democratic Congress, he should be able to put that agenda in effect. Because Americans made him president. And he said all this liberal stuff. Right? Right?
Ah, no, grasshopper, I am sad to say that you do not understand the mysterious labyrinth that is the mind of American politics--the mainstream media. The election means only what they wish it to mean and they emphatically do not want it to mean a return to liberal politics. That would be wrong. After all, most of them earn more than $250,000. So, in recent days, the leading bloviator index has started to burble. First, Jon Meacham of Newsweek explained that this is a center right country and Obama will have to govern accordingly. Second, David Brooks opined that "Patio Man" has dominated this election; he is concerned about order and Obama must pay attention to him.
Both essays are among the dumbest things that have appeared in print this year. Brooks needs to understand; patio man did not, by any stretch of the imagination, dominate this election. Patio man, who lives in suburbia and mourns the loss of Sharper Image, is a small slice of the electorate. Making the natural assumption that he's white (if he's black, he's a yet smaller slice of the electorate), he doesn't matter all that much. If Obama wins this year (throw salt over your shoulder), Democrats will have won the popular vote in four of the last five elections (1992, 1996, 2000, 2008) while losing white men each and every time. Naturally, they've lost white upscale men each and every time, too. You're Patio Man, Mr. Brooks, and you're not particularly significant electorally. And you're poised, over the next decade or so, to become even less demographically and electorally significant. So, get over it. You don't get to set policy.
Meacham makes even less sense. Again, it's possible to slice elections in any number of historical ways, but it's worth noting that only an accident of history prevented Dems from winning 4 of the last 5. In 2000, the liberal vote (Gore,Nader) strongly outpolled the conservative (Bush, Buchanan). So, to make the claim that this is a center right country is odd. Add to that the fact that polling consistently shows the public endorsing a liberal agenda straight down the line. So, I'm not sure what Meacham is smoking. I'm also surprised to learn from him that 1) a basically defunct organization, the Democratic Leadership Council, is responsible for Obama's success. Because, y'know, Obama is a DLC Democrat; 2) all Democratic presidents since and including FDR have moved, once elected, more to the center or right than they ever thought they would or are punished if they don't; and 3) America is conservative because more people label themselves as conservative in polls.
It's hard to know where to begin. A few small points. First, the DLC has nothing to do with Obama nor has the Senator endorsed any of its policies. Plus, they've gone out of business. Second, FDR, for one, ran promising to reduce the size of government and balance the budget--see the Commonwealth Club Address. He then created the modern liberal state. He moved well to the left after his election and won a smashing reelection victory. Third, George W. Bush, of all people, calls himself a conservative--and he has the highest deficits and the highest national debt in history. He has nationalized much of the financial system, and passed the biggest expansion of entitlements since LBJ. Just what you mean by "conservative," dunderhead? Labels are always lagging indicators.
This essay alone explains why I'm dropping Newsweek and subscribing to the Economist. The latter may be more conservative, but it displays a minimal level of historical literacy. What in the world is Meacham's book about Andrew Jackson going to look like?
But accuracy is not what concerns them. The barbarians concern them. President Obama. Check cards for union elections. Free and fair trade. Tax increases on the wealthy. Investments in infrastructure. Universal health care. This is unthinkable. A new generation of pundits might actually be needed to cover this. Oh my....
Comments