Gwynne Dyer: Midterm election losses won't be so bad for Barack Obama

    1 of 1 2 of 1

      About eight months ago, I was visiting an old friend in San Francisco. For reasons I couldn’t then explain, I found myself betting him and his son $100 each that the Democrats would lose their majority in both houses of Congress in the U.S. midterm elections this November.

      It seemed like easy money to them then—surely the Democrats wouldn’t lose the Senate—but I think they are going to owe me $200.

      Much is being made of this in the media at the moment: how disappointed Obama’s former supporters are, how angry and mobilized the Republican “base” are, how extremely hostile to him the new Republican-controlled House and Senate will be.

      How can he be so calm about this? Why doesn’t he get out there and fight?

      Well, he has made a few fairly fiery speeches recently, but basically he knows speeches won’t do much good. His supporters are disappointed because it has been a long, grim recession, and for most Americans it is still not over.

      Obama couldn’t get another economic stimulus bill through Congress at this point even if he thought it was a good idea, so he can’t hurry the recovery up.

      Some of the people who voted Democratic in 2008 are also very cross because Obama has not brought American troops home from Afghanistan as fast as they hoped, or hasn’t got any legislation about climate change through Congress. But he can’t deliver on those things this year either.

      All he actually has at his disposal is words, and they won’t be enough to remotivate disillusioned Democrats.

      The Democrats lack all conviction, while the Republican base is filled with passionate intensity.

      Obama’s approval rating of 44 percent is not especially low for a U.S. president two years into his first term—Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were considerably lower at this point in their presidencies—but most of his supporters won’t bother to vote in this election, while almost all of his enemies will.

      If you really believe that your country has been hijacked by a Muslim Communist who was born in Kenya (or a cannibal troll who was born in Mordor, or whatever), then you will certainly get out and vote.

      If all of the retired white people vote, and only the usual midterm proportion of all the other demographics does, then the Democrats will lose both houses of Congress.

      So why isn’t Obama more worried about it?

      He will certainly regret that so many long-serving Democratic senators and congressmen are going to lose their seats this autumn, but it really does not much matter to him who controls the Congress for the next two years.

      He can’t hope to get any more legislation even through the current Congress since the Democrats lost their “super-majority” of 60 seats in the Senate last January, so what’s the difference?

      Nor does Obama actually have to get more legislation through Congress right now. It would be nice to have a tough climate-change bill, no doubt, but from a political point of view, there is no new law that he simply must pass before he faces reelection himself in 2012.

      Indeed, he stands a very good chance of winning a second term in 2012, in large part because of what is going to happen this November.

      Getting majorities in both houses of Congress will leave the Republicans nowhere to hide on the critical issue of cutting the huge federal deficit. They have already said that they will not raise taxes—even for those earning more than $250,000 a year—and they have pledged not to cut defence spending.

      What’s left? The only other big-ticket items in the budget are entitlements: health care and pensions.

      The United States has not yet gone through the painful debate about how to tame the deficit that has already happened in most European countries, but it will have to do so soon.

      That poses a particular problem for Republicans, because if they will not raise taxes on the rich or cut defence spending, then they have to support brutal cuts in health care and pensions or lose all credibility as deficit-cutters.

      But cutting entitlements would alienate the Republicans’ own most important demographic: older white people. They will not risk that.

      By contrast, the Democrats would not be alienating their own base if they cut defence spending and raise taxes on the rich, so they can be coherent and consistent on the topic.

      A Republican-controlled Congress may well come to be seen as an obstacle to fiscal responsibility even by many Republicans.

      Make the further, quite reasonable assumptions that the U.S. economy will be growing strongly again by 2012, and that U.S. troops will be gone from Iraq and on their way out of Afghanistan, and you have a credible scenario in which the Democrats win back both houses of Congress as well as reelecting Barack Obama.

      Meanwhile, Obama can veto any Republican attempt to repeal the legislation he has already got through Congress, and he will retain a free hand in foreign affairs.

      He could even try to get new legislation on immigration through Congress: it wouldn’t pass, but he could thereby lock up the Latino vote. No wonder he looks calm.

      Gwynne Dyer’s new book, Crawling from the Wreckage, has just been published in Canada by Random House.

      Comments

      11 Comments

      Nima K

      Oct 18, 2010 at 5:15am

      Wow, that's an interesting thought. Though I never think the two party system will do anything outside of the interests of those with the most money in a system that is driven purly by money (politically, socially and otherwise) its still an interesting analysis, if you really want to stay in the Republican Vs. Democrat buble.

      borguy

      Oct 18, 2010 at 12:00pm

      "Make the further, quite reasonable assumptions that the U.S. economy will be growing strongly again by 2012"

      The incomes of the top 1-5% may grow but I have yet to hear a serious analysis how the US economy will grow by 2012 or any time in the foreseeable future

      Ray I

      Oct 18, 2010 at 1:56pm

      Gwynne, You missed one possible thing that the GOP might do to make themselves (and their Presidential candidate) more popular in 2012 - further cuts to taxes. If you believe in Arthur Laffer's Nobel Prise winning concept of the Laffer Curve where cuts in marginal tax rates can increase tax revenues by increasing the velocity of money and number of taxable transactions then you have to think they might just give it another try.

      William

      Oct 18, 2010 at 3:48pm

      It would be nice to be that optimistic, and I agree that the Republicans present no substantive path towards a balanced budget or sustainable deficit.

      However, i'm not sure how much the general public will punish the Republicans for failing to curb the deficit. It's true people have gone bonkers over the large stimulus bill and the bail outs, but they may not be as bothered by a large deficit if it comes in the form of only a conventional yearly budget. Certainly, that form of deficit gets less press.

      Further, for a time, the public will continue to blame democrats for present conditions even though Republicans have increased power. The rate at which this mindset will erode will be reduced by the fact the Democrats will retain control of the executive, and it will largely be determined by how well each side plays the blame game. As far as I am concerned, Republicans are usually better at politics than the Democrats are, and this will play in their favor.

      Further, the Republicans may get some things done now that it will be in their interest to. Obama is reasonable and infatuated with by bipartisanship. Enough democrats in congress may be also, they are after all both less cohesive and polarized than the Republicans, such that just as happened in the Clinton presidency, substantial compromise bills can get passed that will increase public confidence in the incumbent congress.

      So, who knows. Good food for thought though.

      glen p robbins

      Oct 18, 2010 at 4:51pm

      I would agree generally with what Mr. Dyer said.

      miguel

      Oct 18, 2010 at 7:03pm

      The usual way to defuse your opponent is to put them in a position of responsibility, and if any of the Tea Party candidates get elected, there will be an infux of not to experienced people.
      With the mass confusion in regards to the forclosure issue, it's hard to say if the economy will turn around in two years time. There is no sign of house building happening.
      Miguel

      Petar Ticinovic

      Oct 19, 2010 at 8:04am

      No, it's just the Presidential election loss that will be bad for Barack Hussein Obama. Ooops...used his middle name! My bad.

      Ryan C

      Oct 19, 2010 at 1:15pm

      If the economy does eventualy pick up by 2012 the Republicans may be well placed to claim credit for it, as mistaken as that is.

      A Canuck

      Oct 21, 2010 at 8:19am

      I was surprised when Dyer said 'the US will blame Obama for the bad economy' (just after the 2008 election).

      Hey, the US electorate isn't that dumb, is it? I was wrong, Dyer was right. Glad I wasn't around to make a bet!

      I am wondering whether the secret to Dyer's prescience is that: he figures out what the political consensus is, and then predicts the opposite!

      ErnestPayne

      Oct 24, 2010 at 8:15pm

      One other side effect will be the infusion of newcomers with absolutely no seniority and no chance of bringing the much loved (and hated) pork home to their constituents. Newly elected Republicans will have a lot of explaining to do to their constituents in 2012.