Confused Voters Want Revenge and Results?

[babylonsister]

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/05/17/2010-elections-confused-voters-want-revenge-and-results/

2010 Elections: Confused Voters Want Revenge and Results?

David Corn

snip//

No doubt, some of that I-hate-D.C. feeling is ideologically motivated: Tea Party types are livid that a terrorist-coddling secret Muslim who was born in Kenya is nationalizing the health care system on his way to imposing complete socialization upon the United States of America. But anti-incumbent passion does seem to extend to other kinds of voters. After the Massachusetts special Senate election that sent Republican Scott Brown to Washington to inhabit the seat once held by Ted Kennedy, a top union official told me of her experience working a Democratic phone bank that had been trying to move Democratic votes in the Bay State to vote for Brown's opponent, Martha Coakley, the state attorney general. Solid and longtime Democratic voters had told this union leader they were going with Brown -- even though they disagreed with his policy positions -- to send Washington a message. She recalled asking one union voter, "You know Brown stands for everything you're against?" That voter told her, "I know that. But I want to send a message to Washington."

So what's the message? It may be that non-Tea Party angry voters crave immediate results out of D.C. -- particularly when it comes to unemployment and the economy. (For them, apparently, it doesn't count for much that Obama's $862 billion stimulus bill has created or prevented the loss of up to 3.5 million jobs.) But what's the best way to get Washington toiling effectively on the messes at hand? Is it to increase the power of the minority party that tends to block the president? That doesn't make sense. Yet a recent poll indicates that voters might not think in such, uh, logical terms. It notes that 62 percent of voters believe it's better if different parties control Congress and the presidency. Sure, that provides a check on power. But it's also a recipe for squabbling, not action.

This number is particularly high (and, consequently, rather worrisome for Democrats). Shortly before the GOP takeover of the House in 1994 -- remember those "angry white men" voters? -- 55 percent wanted to see the White House and Congress in different partisan hands. A month prior to the last election, less than half of Americans -- 48 percent -- were worried about single-party control. Now, almost two-thirds want a bottleneck in the nation's capital.

Is there a paradox at work? When crises are afoot, the public frets more about one party running the show and going too far? Yet if an anti-incumbent wave takes out more Democrats than Republicans, it will likely be harder for the White House and Congress to produce policy initiatives that address any of the current challenges. In fact, the odds are there will be more of the partisan bickering and gamesmanship that many Americans say they cannot stand.

Obama was elected in part because he promised to rise above partisan politics. He vowed that on his watch Washington would operate better for the citizenry. But in politics it takes two to transcend. And when sharp-edged partisan and policy disagreements divide the two parties, transcendence isn't possible. Moreover, an attempt to achieve it might come at the expense of bold action.

Throwing out bums this fall will not make D.C. more functional. It will make the capital more factional -- and ineffectual. How Obama and Democrats persuade pissed-off voters of this is a historic challenge. Voters are not always practical-minded, and in many troubled relationships, the desire for revenge often trumps the need for results.