November 5, 2024

15 thoughts on “Republicans Take the House

  1. What the House majority means is that any legislation needs significant GOP support to get through. If Congress had looked like this two years ago, we would have had no stimulus and no Obamacare. At least they can still block cap & tax.

  2. I think the larger issue here Sam is that your “Obamamania theory” is becoming increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to falsify. Will you ever admit that there is a finite, non-zero probability that there are people who have legitimate qualms with the Obama agenda? That is, people who are not homophobes, racists, fox news watchers, or bible thumping conservative nutjobs who actually don’t like the expansion of government? You see as a conservative I will willingly cede that there are liberals who have legitimate arguments for the issues they support, but you don’t seem to be willing to acknowledge the same.

    But since you made the point, here’s the data that prove you’re wrong:

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/141032/2010-conservatives-outnumber-moderates-liberals.aspx

    5% increase in those who consider themselves conservatives, 2% drop in liberals since 2008. That’s not a giant leap, but it’s a definite step to the right. Sorry Ferenc, I’m not trying to rub it in your face here (since you certainly did not rub it into mine in 2008), but you can’t just spin November 2010 like this. It was a loss. Acknowledge it as such and move on.

  3. Good point, Dennis. It’s hard for me to understand how the Dems could possibly spin this as anything but a repudiation of their legislative agenda, and watching them try over the last 24 hours has certainly produced some comical results.

    I think the greater solace for Dems must be that they’ve won the only thing that should matter: the direction of policy in this country. This Congress pushed through more substantive legislation than any since perhaps LBJ’s Great Society–legislation that will have a significant long-term impact on this country, for better or worse. Liberals should acknowledge that they got trounced, but be proud of and talk up their legislative accomplishments, arguing that they chose policy over politics. (A lot of truth to this, I think.)

    For thoughts on this far better than my own, I refer to pundit-geniuses Jonathan Chait at TNR and Ross Douthat at the NYT:
    http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/78910/was-it-worth-it
    http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/was-it-worth-it/

  4. I think the most important lesson of the election is that there is no such thing as an “enduring majority.”

    Bush + Rove tried to establish one with things like Part D in 02-05. That failed. Then Dems roll us in 06-08 and we’re told “the country has moved left!” And now the GOP wins 65+ seats in the House.

  5. Ferenk: in response to my editorial you said “I disagree with much of what you’ve said, not on differences of policy but on perceptions of reality. It is these competing perceptions of what is real and true that define our national divide right now, more so than the outcome of midterm elections during a down economy.”

    Again, as Dennis points out, your go-to response to just about any critique of liberal policy is that the critique is actually an ill-conceived perception of reality. This election can’t POSSIBLY be a refutation of Democratic principles, just angry people people being angry. What Dennis just pointed out is that you’re taking part in the exact type of evasion techniques I criticize in my article! How insulting to the American people your statement is.

    I guess I’ll continue the level of debate you’ve initiated and respond by saying, “na-uh, YOUR perception of reality is wrong!”

  6. I agree with both Dennis and John. It is worth noting that I certainly was not suggesting the country’s “step to the right” was permanent. That doesn’t, however, make it any less real.

  7. Mr. Ferenc, Obama ran on “bringing us together” and all of that, as well as a moderate does of liberalism, of course. The “bring us together” shtick has turned out to be total BS. A bunch of pundits considered to be conservatives fell for it, e.g. Davids Broder/Brooks, Kathleen Parker… And what happened? His major policy initiatives have passed solely with Democratic support. George W. Bush was far more bipartisan of a president than our current one.

    This is what I find irritating about the “Sanity movement.” It’s a bunch of liberals saying “things would be so much better if everyone was reasonable.” READ: “things would be so much better if everyone agreed with me, because my positions are based upon reason alone.” (Obama fits in perfectly!) Of course it’s again BS, because a particular political ideology–liberalism–underlies it all.

    P.S. Post fixed.

  8. I don’t think anyone here is really arguing that the basic political alignment of the nation has changed just because of this one election. As I said earlier, I never suggested that the country’s step to the right (with respect to the makeup of Congress) was permanent or somehow indicative of a deep shift in political and social norms in American society. Rather, I simply observed that– for now, at least– one of the country’s major policy-making institutions has moved to the right. Make of this move what you will.

Comments are closed.