Historic challenges await America’s new leader
As Election Day unfolded, pundits, politicians, and ordinary citizens attempted to put into perspective the first election of an African-American to the nation’s highest office. Barack Obama was never shy about running as the “change” candidate, calling for “an end to politics as usual.” In examining the electoral map, it is tempting to conclude that Obama has already begun to deliver on his promise to forge a new brand of politics. He won nine states that George W. Bush had won in 2004, including Virginia, a state that no Democrat had won since Lyndon Johnson in 1964.
But while Obama’s unique skills and compelling personal story created a very difficult challenge for his opponent, it was the state of the economy and Bush’s track record that conspired to make 2008 the Democrats’ election for the taking. Obama’s ability to tackle the immediate problems confronting the country will determine the extent to which his victory alters the political landscape.
It’s the Economy, Stupid
In many ways, the 2008 electoral map resembles that of Bill Clinton’s 1992 triumph over George H. W. Bush. The 370 electoral votes garnered by Clinton in 1992 to Bush’s 168 is a nearly identical split to Obama’s 365-162 victory. Just as the 1992 election cycle was dominated by growing anxiety over a slowing economy, today’s ongoing financial crisis renewed panic over the economy.
In an interview with the HPR, Thomas Patterson of the Harvard Kennedy School noted that “In times of economic trouble, we assign the president to be the safeguard of the economy.” But looming anxiety over failures to bring the country out of recession hurt voters’ confidence in Republicans. According to exit polls, only 20 percent of voters felt the nation is headed in the right direction, with seven percent happy with current economic conditions. Furthermore, 85 percent said they were worried about the state of the economy; more than half reported being “very worried.”
The election “can be seen as a reaction to the last eight years,” said Matthew Platt, a government professor at Harvard, in an interview with the HPR. Just as economic conditions in 1992 led voters to overwhelmingly reject George H. W. Bush at the polls, this year’s recession handed the White House to the Democrats. In a campaign season that highlighted Republican failures, Patterson said, the 2008 election was one that the Democrats “just weren’t going to lose,” whether or not Obama headlined the ticket.
Delivering on Change
Obama’s victory came as a result of both Republican failures and his message of change. On the heels of such an issue-focused election, however, if the new administration fails to deliver on reform, its mandate may be short-lived. Platt cites the economy, health care, foreign policy, and climate change as spillover election issues at the top of Obama’s docket and says that his mandate is riding on his promise to address them. No one really knows how deep the current economic downturn is; its effects could last until 2010, or possibly longer. “A difference between now and the 1930s,” Patterson noted, “is that the electorate’s patience is shorter.” In two years, if the economy does not recover, a Republican resurgence similar to that of 1994 is likely.
Anyone predicting that the outcome of the 2008 election marks a new era for Washington may therefore be jumping the gun. Though 2008 proved to be a satisfying year for Democrats, one need only look back six years to the 2002 midterm elections to witness the Republicans’ most recent heyday, as they won majorities in Congress to complement their control of the White House. That could have marked the start of a new Republican era in America, but that possibility soon disappeared as a mounting death toll in Iraq, a growing national debt, and a series of Republican scandals rocked the Bush administration.
This January offers the promise of a similar fresh start for Democrats, but Barack Obama has a narrow window to deliver on his sweeping promises of reform. There is no guarantee of another four years, or even another two, for his party to gradually phase in its wide-ranging agenda. For Democrats, prospects in future elections rest on the hope that they will deliver the promised change quickly in the approaching months. And for that, it is finally their candidate’s turn to take the lead.
As Election Day unfolded, pundits, politicians, and ordinary citizens attempted to put into perspective the first election of an African-American to the nation’s highest office. Barack Obama was never shy about running as the “change” candidate, calling for “an end to politics as usual.” In examining the electoral map, it is tempting to conclude that Obama has already begun to deliver on his promise to forge a new brand of politics. He won nine states that George W. Bush had won in 2004, including Virginia, a state that no Democrat had won since Lyndon Johnson in 1964.
But while Obama’s unique skills and compelling personal story created a very difficult challenge for his opponent, it was the state of the economy and Bush’s track record that conspired to make 2008 the Democrats’ election for the taking. Obama’s ability to tackle the immediate problems confronting the country will determine the extent to which his victory alters the political landscape.
It’s the Economy, Stupid
In many ways, the 2008 electoral map resembles that of Bill Clinton’s 1992 triumph over George H. W. Bush. The 370 electoral votes garnered by Clinton in 1992 to Bush’s 168 is a nearly identical split to Obama’s 365-162 victory. Just as the 1992 election cycle was dominated by growing anxiety over a slowing economy, today’s ongoing financial crisis renewed panic over the economy.
In an interview with the HPR, Thomas Patterson of the Harvard Kennedy School noted that “In times of economic trouble, we assign the president to be the safeguard of the economy.” But looming anxiety over failures to bring the country out of recession hurt voters’ confidence in Republicans. According to exit polls, only 20 percent of voters felt the nation is headed in the right direction, with seven percent happy with current economic conditions. Furthermore, 85 percent said they were worried about the state of the economy; more than half reported being “very worried.”
The election “can be seen as a reaction to the last eight years,” said Matthew Platt, a government professor at Harvard, in an interview with the HPR. Just as economic conditions in 1992 led voters to overwhelmingly reject George H. W. Bush at the polls, this year’s recession handed the White House to the Democrats. In a campaign season that highlighted Republican failures, Patterson said, the 2008 election was one that the Democrats “just weren’t going to lose,” whether or not Obama headlined the ticket.
Delivering on Change
Obama’s victory came as a result of both Republican failures and his message of change. On the heels of such an issue-focused election, however, if the new administration fails to deliver on reform, its mandate may be short-lived. Platt cites the economy, health care, foreign policy, and climate change as spillover election issues at the top of Obama’s docket and says that his mandate is riding on his promise to address them. No one really knows how deep the current economic downturn is; its effects could last until 2010, or possibly longer. “A difference between now and the 1930s,” Patterson noted, “is that the electorate’s patience is shorter.” In two years, if the economy does not recover, a Republican resurgence similar to that of 1994 is likely.
Anyone predicting that the outcome of the 2008 election marks a new era for Washington may therefore be jumping the gun. Though 2008 proved to be a satisfying year for Democrats, one need only look back six years to the 2002 midterm elections to witness the Republicans’ most recent heyday, as they won majorities in Congress to complement their control of the White House. That could have marked the start of a new Republican era in America, but that possibility soon disappeared as a mounting death toll in Iraq, a growing national debt, and a series of Republican scandals rocked the Bush administration.
This January offers the promise of a similar fresh start for Democrats, but Barack Obama has a narrow window to deliver on his sweeping promises of reform. There is no guarantee of another four years, or even another two, for his party to gradually phase in its wide-ranging agenda. For Democrats, prospects in future elections rest on the hope that they will deliver the promised change quickly in the approaching months. And for that, it is finally their candidate’s turn to take the lead.