I think that people voted for Barack Obama in two discreet blocs. Some voted for him because they supported his campaign pledge to "fundamentally transform the United States of America". Others voted for him because he ran as the Anti-Bush. Of these two groups, I think the latter group was the larger, and was decisive in the election.
Historically, after a political party has held the White House for two consecutive terms, the other major party's candidate is elected. This is not always the case (G.H.W. Bush succeeded Reagan), but it is the general rule. Electors generally like "change", if only for the sake of change. And George Bush's unpopularity sealed the deal, especially since the economy was shaky. So a Democratic nominee, regardless of who it was, had a great chance to win; a Republican candidate was almost certain to lose. The platforms and promises of the candidates were less important in this election than their party labels.
Except for that smaller group, who voted for Obama because they did desire to see the institutions of American government fundamentally changed. These people would have voted for him regardless of his party affiliation. Had he run as the candidate of the Know-Nothing Party, or the Whigs, they would have voted for him anyway.
Now, I don't think Obama understands that the two voting blocs I've described are separate groups. I think he mistook his election as an endorsement of his "transformational" platform by everyone who voted for him. Now he finds his popularity sinking a bit, and the polls are showing disapproval of his major policy initiatives in the areas of health care reform and energy policy. This is because the "Anti-Bushers" who voted for him never liked his platform from the start.
But transformation has come. Even if it isn't wanted.
No comments:
Post a Comment