Reflections on the 2006 U.S. Elections
A look backward and forward to put recent events in perspective
It is intriguing to read some of the various reactions to our recent American elections. My suspicion is that many of our overseas friends and others who are true Bush-haters will be disappointed in developments over the next two years. They may well be allowing their enthusiasm for a shift to Democratic control in the Congress to feed their exuberant emotional preferences.
It is likely that very little in American policy and particularly foreign policy will change that was not already en route prior to the election. It would be much different if we had a parliamentary system rather than three distinct (and highly competitive) branches of government. We should all recall that the President is constitutionally responsible for foreign policy and the military. Of course, he is influenced by public demands and political necessities to make trades, and is dependent ultimately on Congress for appropriations, but his influence should not be underestimated. Nor should the determination and persistence of George Bush be dismissed lightly in speculating on future developments at home or abroad.
Do not be surprised if the President realizes some of the ideas he favors in common with the Democrats. Bush will not oppose seriously an increase in minimum wage—perhaps with some small business allowances; may yet get his desired immigration package refused by his Republican House; and could well obtain improvements in his earlier education legislation with Senator Kennedy and his prescription drug program, both hampered by Republican majorities. Although he will not get what he wants on tax extensions, he could get some important items like relief for middle income groups and perhaps elimination of the AMT which will hit more and more Americans in the coming years.
Drifting around the center
It should be recalled that we have had a relatively centrist government throughout our history since there is a perpetual struggle underway between the presidency and the Congress for greater control. Although the extremist views from all sides catch the media attention, as is currently the case, our government rarely drifts over a few degrees to either the left or the right and then soon corrects its course. Our system of checks and balances keeps us drifting around the center.
After Watergate, Congress enjoyed an almost unprecedented period of playing the winning hand, but that began shifting with Reagan and continued with the first George Bush in the Middle East and then with Clinton (whom Congress could not finally impeach even with Republican control). The presidency’s supremacy has been accentuated under Bush II, and Congress, through its investigative powers, will press hard to pull this lever back toward the center from the perspective of the House of Representatives, but the Senate will be less enthusiastic because some six to eight of its members are considering a run for the presidency in 2008, thus tempering their likely reactions.
This mid-term election was not so dramatic as some have expressed since it follows closely the pattern of results in earlier administrations. Only in 2002 in recent years did the president’s party gain seats at mid-term. a highly unexpected development. Reagan had to operate (and quite successfully) in his last two years with the Democrats taking control of both houses. In 1994, Clinton lost both houses to the Republicans with losses almost 50 percent greater than Bush’s defeat in this past election. At that time, the Republicans exuberantly called the President “irrelevant” but soon saw that the chief executive could block almost any legislative move they made with his veto power, forcing them to work increasingly in collaboration with him for more centrist and positive results (e.g., welfare reform). At a president’s mid-term, the typical swing in the House is thirty seats away from the President’s party, about the same as in this election’s twenty-nine, with the Senate usually following more closely but along the same pattern as the House.
It was intriguing, as reported in the exit polls, that the public’s first concern was corruption, with terrorism second, the economy third, and the war in Iraq fourth—probably not the expectations or conclusions of our overseas observers and most Democrats. It is even more telling to note that Evangelicals, who voted in a heavy turnout about 90 percent for Bush in earlier elections, apparently voted in smaller numbers and went about one-third for the Democrats this time, possibly a decisive swing. This emphasizes the importance of the corruption and mistrust-of-Congress issue. As you will remember, Congress across both parties has ranked well below President Bush in its approval rating by as much as ten points or more.
Interestingly, Virginia went Democratic for the Senate by fewer than 8,000 votes out of 2.4 million cast, yet it is estimated that more than 50,000 Muslim voters participated in that state’s election with a reported 93 percent going for Webb, far more than his margin of victory over Allen. It was Allen’s narrow loss, by only one-third of one percent, that gave the Democrats their Senate majority and the committee chairmanships, hardly an overwhelming mandate. Even then, Allen’s drop from an overwhelming lead to about a tie came with his repeated missteps and evasive explanations, totally unexpected from a seasoned, successful politician who was earlier considered a possible 2008 presidential candidate. This loss of one seat will make approvals of Bush appointees much more difficult and probably now doom the nomination of Bolton as ambassador to the UN.
Iraq and American Unilateralism
Rumsfeld’s departure was in the works well before the election, perhaps as far as one year ago as advocated by Andrew Card, the prior chief of staff, and many others close to the President. The White House cannot come up with a replacement candidate on the spot who has been thoroughly checked out except over long weeks of deliberation. The designation of the Iraq Study Group some time ago signaled a major process movement for Bush to shift perhaps strategy as well as tactics in that war. Their recommendations will probably come very close to the excellent speech by Tony Blair this week on a “Whole Middle East Strategy.”
The Democrats will be publicly demanding early troop withdrawals but there will likely be none before mid-year in 2007 and then initially only down to the level reached about eighteen months ago. It is probable that a reduction of about 20,000 every six months or so may occur afterward, but a substantial number will remain for years as back-ups, largely remote from major population centers. We Americans would all like to see some reasonable form of self-government in Iraq take hold, but there will be little patience to monitor and police in heavy force a continuing and perhaps accelerating civil war with the tribes enjoying their days of revenge that have been repressed for generations and even centuries in the religious arena.
We clearly differ from many of our overseas friends in our view of the danger to Western civilization from Islamic extremism. Most Americans consider it to be a threat of enormous importance given the technologically advanced weapons of all types now available. We regret to note that many of our European friends are also beginning to see its destructive fruits multiply within their own countries. We will continue to fight Islamic extremism as vigorously as we can, whether with only a few friends in a coalition of the willing or on occasions largely alone.
This is not a new posture of unilateralism with Bush although we have tended to mute this tendency before his unnecessarily blunt statements. Remember that our first such unilateral action was against the Barbary Pirates in North Africa under Thomas Jefferson when the much stronger European states were content to pay their tribute rather than clear out by force those who were undermining the free movement of commercial navigation in their nearby seas. Clinton was our more recent unilateralist (but not so expressed) with his moves in the Balkans that should have been handled by their European neighbors. Even now there are few institutions that rank lower in American eyes than a UN that is poorly organized, untrustworthy, and totally incapable of enforcing any of its so-called decisions.
Fears of a so-called American Empire abroad or a theocracy at home are completely unreasonable notions. We have not the patience of the British for the former nor the collective religious orientations that have ever tolerated the latter. Although we are still a highly religious, and an actively practicing society, we are highly individualistic in our beliefs and orientations, one reason that a national church has never been considered seriously except by a handful of big-mouthed extremists who make good guests for competing cable TV channels. We compete as highly between faiths as we do in politics and business.
Global Issues
With the Democrats now in control of Congress, any hope for the Doha Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations is essentially lost since, heavily backed by labor unions, our new majority is increasingly protectionist as are also many of the Republicans now. Trade agreements will likely continue to be largely bilateral or regional arrangements with little hope for an international agreement in the near future.
As for climate control, there is a growing appreciation in the U.S. of this as a dire threat. As usual, most of the progress is being led by the private sector with the major business entities and their associations criticized so vehemently by many leading the way. Several states may follow California’s example, but there will be little movement by our Federal government regardless of the conversation in recognition of this growing problem. We should recall that the Senate, led by Democrat Robert Byrd, voted a resolution unanimously condemning the idea of signing the Kyoto Treaty. The U.S. will not move decisively here unless China and India are included and a pragmatic energy credit market is established. Our politicians will not sacrifice jobs or risk a greater recession than normal for a long-term ideal.
In the meantime, our economy keeps moving forward well in spite of political criticisms. The S&P 500 hit a six-year high November 15 and the Dow an all-time high. Business likes a split government, since the probabilities for dramatic legislation are low. Some 7 million incremental new jobs have been created in the last three years with unemployment rates now only 4.4 percent, somewhat below the normal statistical level of turnover expected in our highly mobile society. Our GDP growth is the envy of every advanced nation. Business is now beginning to be concerned about finding adequate talent for the future both in quantity and quality, with the latter being of greater concern. We may be slowing our growth somewhat, but this is largely triggered to avoid inflationary pressures, currently only of marginal concern.
Although worried about the rapid employment dislocations caused by globalization, our general public, including some 11 million illegal aliens, seem to be living at a standard of living that most in the world can only aspire to emulate. We are not at all envious of our European friends and their labor and economic inflexibility nor of their high cost social systems. Clearly we have much to do in health care, educational improvements and in assisting our poor more effectively, but they are now largely better off than our country has ever known. We also benefit from a high degree of mobility up the economic ladder, except for single mothers and those without high school educations. This does not mean we are satisfied, since it is our nature to be highly critical of ourselves as well as others and perpetually dissatisfied with our performances, regardless of how they rank compared with others in the world.
National Character
In sum, America has many faults, and we will continue in our dynamism to develop new ones not admired by our more cultured friends overseas. We know we are not well liked, but frankly we never were, although our ranking has generally been somewhat above that of today. For some forty years my work has been internationally oriented with about a dozen years in full-time residence in four different European countries (and now with four French grandsons). Except for a few personal friends who are very dear indeed, we Americans are admired in some ways but in general envied, resented, and at times feared.
In truth we Americans are not a very lovable lot, even when we try. We are a bit too brash and somewhat undiplomatic by nature and preference. Bush makes a far better target than most, but it is probable that we will continue in the somewhat uncomfortable but enviable position of being the largest economic, military, and even political power for at least another generation, and perhaps more, despite the imminent prospect of decline predicted repeatedly by our European friends since the 1960s. That means we will have to be dealt with even by those who see little good in us or our thinking. Even then, we acknowledge, even with our many faults, that we cannot stop the flood of entry applicants and illegal entries into our country from a great diversity of cultures, nations, languages, and religions.
Perhaps there is a little something here that still seems to be highly attractive to some who are determined to improve their lot in life and find no better place to achieve it in today’s world. It is likely that our new split government, even with its highly publicized disagreements and extreme statements on both sides, will continue to make the United States a magnet location and the envy of the world.
Alonzo L. McDonald, founding Chairman and Senior Fellow of The Trinity Forum, is Chairman of Avenir Group, Inc. His career has included service in public and private sector firms as well as in education, as U.S. ambassador to the GATT talks, and as chief of staff in the Carter White House. Among his writings are Trinity Forum Readings on Jesus, the world at the millennium, and the Foreword to the new Reading by Václav Havel on civility and politics.
