11/03/2010 (10:23 pm)
This election is not an endorsement of the Republican party. It was, rather, a resurgence of government of the people.
This election was a whole-hearted rejection of the ruling elite. Obama lied and ran as a moderate, which is what the public elected. He’s governing as a progressive elitist, telling the public what he insists they need, which is NOT what the public voted for. The vast majority of Americans see this as a rejection of American citizen government (which, in fact, it is.)
An elite government saddled the public with huge deficits, massive social welfare spending, nationalized industries (health care, automobiles, investment banking), and executive sidestepping of Constitutional process. The public rejected it. The public also rejected earmarks, Congressional nest-feathering, and what they consider the “Old Boy Network” of Congress. Anything that smacks of political elitism is endangered.
This is not a victory for Republicans, though. The public clearly rejected the old-line Republican party in 2006 and 2008, and continued to do so in 2010, tossing at least half a dozen party Republicans to the winds in favor of new candidates who promised to cut government spending, cut taxes, and reduce the size and reach of government. Republicans who continue to play power politics will be thrown to the wolves in 2012. Republican elitists are as endangered as Democratic ones.
The election signals a new citizen activism aimed at restoring the government’s responsiveness to the people. The arrogant hand of progressive leadership spoon-feeding the public by government mandate was slapped aside. The public said “The government will obey us, not the other way ’round.”
For the next several years, any strategy that does not increase the government’s sensitivity to the demands of its citizens will fail. Democrats or Republicans who continue to ignore the voice of the public, ignore it at their peril. Ours is a government of the people, not a government of the progressive elite, and it will remain so.
2 Comments »
Comment by suek
“Obama lied and ran as a moderate, which is what the public elected.”
I agree he lied, but he didn’t exactly run as a moderate, I don’t think. Maybe. He ran on “Hope” and “Change”…but _what_ change?? You and I probably would agree on the change _he_ meant, but what did the voters who voted for change _think_ he meant? What change were they looking for? Remember the one woman who said “if Obama becomes president, I won’t have to worry about my house payment”? Remember when he said he wanted to “spread the wealth around”? those were pretty clear cut statements both by the ones who elected him and by him himself. So maybe the problem is that we have a huge group of voters who can no longer take care of themselves? In which case, socialism _is_ what they want.
What voters wanted when they voted for “Change” still puzzles me.
Comment by jweaks
It’s all about the “middle.” They went for Obama in 2008 because they bought into the perception that he would be in the middle… post-partisan, post-racial, apolitical… they thought he was the one to restore the balance to the force.
It was a bill of goods. The middle learned fast and turned hard against him as rightly they should.
Is he wise enough to move towards them? IT doesn’t appear so.