After the Vote: Nothing and Everything Has Changed

“We went through all that, and nothing has changed.”

That view keeps popping up among the myriad analyses of the interesting, and frequently annoying, election campaign just completed. The Geezer, months ago, predicted four more years of Washington gridlock should President Obama be reelected. I’ve changed my mind.

Yes, the arithmetic in the political landscape changed only slightly. Republicans lost some seats in the House (they may well regain them in mid-term elections, as often happens) but retained a majority. Democrats gained only a couple of seats in the Senate, keeping a majority, but falling well short of the 60 needed to be able to easily push legislation through that chamber.

However, the legislative power positions changed dramatically. There are reasons for confidence that some useful things will get done in the months ahead

Perhaps most important, the Republicans took a real shellacking in areas that bode ill for the future of the party. President Obama won handily among young women, and barring major changes in Republican approaches those voters are likely to be Democrats in the future. Hispanics turned out in large numbers. Just a few years back, 44 percent of them voted for George W. Bush. This time, 70 percent backed President Obama. The Democrat even was favored by Cuban-Americans, who previously were pretty solidly in the conservative camp.

Why the big shift in the Hispanic vote?  I became acquainted with many Hispanics in contacts with workers and contractors in 11 years of serving as a homeowner association accountant. We also had several Hispanic neighbors. With few exceptions, these folks were hard-working, religious, family-oriented, and quite conservative on social issues. They were as likely to vote for Republicans as Democrats, and some did in the recent election.

My Hispanic contacts also were proud people with a low tolerance for insults. Governor Romney should have realized that when he talked about “self-deportation.” Republicans should have been aware of it when they opposed the “Dream Act.” Latinos are the fastest growing segment of the American population. If the Republicans don’t clean up their act in relations with them, the party is doomed. Republican leaders know that.

So we will not see gridlock blocking reform of our antiquated immigration policies, something President Obama promised before his first term and was unable to deliver. Now it will happen, either in one big package or in pieces of new legislation.

There will be some form of “amnesty” for illegal immigrants, although the Republicans will call it something else. It would not be surprising if Republicans introduce all or several reform bills. They need to claim credit for positive actions that might help them get back into the good graces of Hispanics.

Women gained representation in Congress. This development coupled with the clear message from female voters that they want to halt attempts to roll back women’s rights should put a stop to right-wing proposals on abortion and contraception, issues thought to have been settled long ago. Those issues have diverted Congress from tackling current problems.

Tea Party arch-conservatives lost ground and influence in this election. The most extreme of them (think Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock) failed to win seats Republicans normally would win.

President Obama gained power well beyond what the arithmetic shows. After his first election he decided to use Democratic Party majorities in Congress to win passage of the Affordable Care Act. He spent a lot of political capital. That almost cost him reelection, as the adverse reaction obviously was greater than he expected. All that is behind him now.

Now the candidate who vowed to dismantle Obamacare “on my first day in office” has been soundly defeated. Romney and other Republicans admitted along the way that Obamacare includes provisions they support. It also has some problems that need fixing. We can expect compromise here. Obamacare will stay, and the parties will work together to repair flaws in it.

Of course, the crisis of the moment is the possibility the nation will “fall over the fiscal cliff” at the end of next month as Congress and the President refuse to work out a new compromise to curtail the federal deficit. That is very unlikely to happen. President Obama phoned House Speaker John Boehner soon after the election ended. They are said to have agreed to be cautious about public pronouncements that would make fiscal negotiations very difficult. The rhetoric has been rather mild.

One action may simply be a postponement of legislation until the new Congress convenes in January. Worry warts might find that frightening.  It would be a positive act. The longer we wait for financial actions that reduce government spending the more time the economy has to continue recovering. The federal budget is not like a household budget. Governments should cut spending when times are good, not when they’re tough.

Pre- and post-election polls showed who has the power. The American public gives Congress a scant 10 percent approval rating. President Obama won about 53 percent of the popular vote and a landslide in the electoral count that really matters. If the Republican-controlled House fails to propose or approve a way to step back from the “cliff,” the blame will fall squarely on them.

Another reason for optimism about dealing with the deficit is that the heavy work has been done. President Obama and Congressman Boehner were close to a deal 18 months ago. It was said to have been killed because of Tea Party opposition that Boehner could not overcome.  Now the Tea Party types are much less likely to block constructive action.

Considerable analysis of alternatives preceded the Obama-Boehner deal that almost became reality. Many ideas came from the Simpson-Bowles Commission, a nonpartisan group whose leaders offered many sound proposals, including tax increases as well as spending cuts. Lots of data are already assembled to guide budget and deficit decisions.

He now has the power to move ahead

In his first term, President Obama had to move with caution after his party lost big in the mid-term elections. The economy, which is well on the way to righting itself as economies do when they emerge from down cycles, was very slow to gain ground. Mr. Obama could ill-afford any rash actions that would end his days in office.

Some say the President now must take some sort of heroic action to “create his legacy” or “become a significant president.”  Nonsense. Mr. Obama already is assured of an important place in the annals of history.

Firsts are the stuff of historic presidencies. Mr. Obama, of course, is the first African-American president. He will be credited with being the first president to end two wars. And, he succeeded in moving the nation forward on the path to universal health care, something Democratic Party leaders have tried and failed to do for more than 80 years.

President Obama by nature seeks compromise with his political opponents, but he now can be very selective about making concessions to the Republicans in Congress. All he really has to do is say “Yes” or “No.” He’s in the catbird seat.

A Fearless Forecast

The Geezer is getting a bit tired of reading and hearing about election politics, and the silly season has barely worked up a head of steam.  It seems everybody with a keyboard, mouth, or touch pad has issued some sort of forecast.  So, here is mine:

I think Mitt Romney’s solid win (39.4 percent in a large field) in yesterday’s New Hampshire primary ensured he will be the Republican nominee for president.

Ron Paul finished second in New Hampshire with 22.8 percent.  No one else came close. I think Paul’s supporters, a strange mix of libertarians, young Republicans, and independents who learn rightward, eventually will decide to push Paul’s views by convincing him to set up a new third party, or run as a Libertarian.

I think Paul’s third party candidacy will siphon off enough votes to do Romney in this November in a close election, just as Ralph Nader’s candidacy did Al Gore in not long ago. Thus, Barack Obama will win reelection in 2012.  

I think the Democrats will gain a majority in the Senate, but they will not take enough seats for a House majority. We will be in for another four years of frustrating stalemate in Washington.  

Stop by at the end of November, and we will review this set of opinions to see if the Geezer’s views have become reality.

Two Dumbs Don’t Make a Smart

Just because you can open your mouth doesn’t mean you should. Often, that's not smart. Just because you can erect a building where a whole lot of people don’t want it doesn’t mean you should. Usually, that's not smart.

Our President is an excellent speaker, but once in a while it appears his mouth starts working before the idea is fully developed. Such was the case that added fuel to The Great Mosque Controversy.

Barack Obama could have stayed out of the whole matter, which would have been smart. Instead, he uttered a basic truth one day—that we have religious freedom in the United States and we should defend it—and qualified the statement the next day—he was not going to make a value judgment about whether or not religious freedom should be exercised by building a mosque in downtown New York City near the 9/11 attack site.

Taken out of context as I’ve just done, the two statements seem harmless. But the context is that a significant number (20 percent or so) of Americans believe two falsehoods about Obama. They think he was not born in the U.S. (he was born in the State of Hawaii) and that he is a Muslim (he was baptized by a United Church of Christ minister more than 20 years ago, and regularly reads the Bible). Despite the truth of the matters, anything Obama says or does to reinforce either of those unfounded beliefs damages him and his political associates.

The rest of the context is that a very large number of Americans are suspicious about Muslim beliefs and intentions. After all, that was not a group of Seventh Day Adventists who launched attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Those are not roving bands of Baptists killing our young men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan.

American Muslims could best counteract the distrust by assuming activist roles in the fight against terrorists and speaking out against them at every opportunity. That would demonstrate their good intentions to their fellow Americans. Building a mosque near the 9/11 site would have the opposite effect. The intent certainly is not to exacerbate Judeo-Christian ill will. The reality is it would do just that, and the mere idea already has done so.

It seems fair to say American Muslims can expect more sympathy and tolerance from a government controlled by Democrats than one dominated by Republicans. The New York Muslim group shot themselves in the foot with the mosque proposal. They handed the right wingers in the GOP in issue they will use to their advantage in November election campaigns. The mosque issue will help energize GOP activists, and give party candidates some votes from independents they might otherwise not have received.

Although he was morally and ethically correct with his first statement and sensible with the second, Obama hurt his party’s chances in the Congressional elections by elevating the discussion to center stage when he chose to make presidential comments about the issue in the manner he did.

Dumb and dumb.