February 11, 2009 5:51 PM
- Text
The 'Survivor' Election
This commentary was written by CBSNews.com's Dick Meyer.
What are the marks of especially important elections?
Do the 2006 elections have the potential to be especially important?
I'll answer the second question first: no.
How come? Historically significant elections do one of two things: They either precipitate clear changes in the direction of government or introduce new, enduring patterns of voting behavior, so-called realignments. Some elections do both: Franklin Roosevelt's election in 1932 would be the classic modern example and, to a lesser degree, Ronald Reagan's in 1980 another.
Midterm elections tend to do neither, though certainly some midterms have been genuine turning points.
In 1994, the Democrats' 40-year grip on the House was cracked and voters continued to elect a GOP House for at least another 12 years (we'll soon see if that lasts). But government policy changed only marginally as a result; the executive and legislative branches were gridlocked in President Clinton's first two years in office when the Democrats controlled the House and stayed that way after the 1994 midterms.
In 1974, the voters protested Watergate and Vietnam by tossing 48 Nixon-tainted Republican seats over to the Democrats, who already were in control. Democrats held on to the House for two more decades, but Republicans had an edge in presidential elections for the next 30 years. However, the Class of '74 did usher some big policy changes — notably in the campaign finance system (changes that were called reform back then but didn't quite work out that way).
A more typical midterm was 2002, dubbed the "Seinfeld election" after the sitcom that famously bragged it was about nothing. The freaky thing about 2002 was that such a vanilla campaign could follow not just the traumas of 9/11, but also the 2000 election, by far the most ambiguous and disputed modern presidential election. But for some reason, in 2002, voters were disengaged and there was a sense that great issues weren't on the table. Five months later, America declared war on Iraq.
This is not a Seinfeld year. Voters are paying attention and big issues are being debated, if you can get through the clutter of political marketing and spin. Between Sep. 5 and Oct. 3, the three network newscasts ran 83 campaign stories, compared with the 20 they did during a similar time in 2002, according to the Center for Media and Public Affairs.
But 2006 is also not a watershed year. Perhaps it might be dubbed the "Survivor" election: a bunch of people will get voted off the island, a different tribe may get the upper hand but the game will go on unchanged and in the same direction.
This midterm will not be a historic humdinger for several reasons. Even if the Democrats get control of the House by a large margin and slender control of the Senate, there will still be a Republican president whose vetoes will stand. So while it's possible selected and important Democratic measures might pass, like a hike in the minimum wage, the ship of state will not be changing course — it will be holding steady and steering for the port of 2008.
Polling and common sense also tells us the voters are deeply disenchanted with both parties and with the institution of Congress, not just with George Bush and the Republicans. The voters will throw a lot of rascals off the island this year, but the new set of rascals will also be at risk. That makes realignment a pipe dream.
All this does mean that the dominant political architecture of the last, well, 38 years will stand — divided government.
I do not mean to trivialize this election by looking at it from a bird's-eye view so high that it implies I think the election and civic participation don't matter or that there isn't a lot at stake. There is. There also are many interesting, important questions beyond, "Who's going to win?"
How loud and clear will the rejection of Bushism be? Will the Gusto Gap play out with disenchanted Republicans staying home and irate Democrats turning out? Has the use of those poorly named "moral values" issues as wedge issues played itself out?
My greatest interest, idiosyncratic I know, is whether the results will portend an opening for a credible third-party candidate in 2008 — because I think the two parties have proven amply and repeatedly that realignments of the balance of power between them will not and cannot redirect government in the way the vast majority of voters want.
Dick Meyer, a veteran political and investigative producer for CBS News, is the editorial director of CBSNews.com, based in Washington, D.C.
E-mail questions, comments, complaints, arguments and ideas to
Against the Grain. We will publish some of the interesting (and civil) ones, sometimes in edited form.
By Dick Meyer
Copyright 2009 CBS. All rights reserved. What are the marks of especially important elections?
Do the 2006 elections have the potential to be especially important?
I'll answer the second question first: no.
How come? Historically significant elections do one of two things: They either precipitate clear changes in the direction of government or introduce new, enduring patterns of voting behavior, so-called realignments. Some elections do both: Franklin Roosevelt's election in 1932 would be the classic modern example and, to a lesser degree, Ronald Reagan's in 1980 another.
Midterm elections tend to do neither, though certainly some midterms have been genuine turning points.
In 1994, the Democrats' 40-year grip on the House was cracked and voters continued to elect a GOP House for at least another 12 years (we'll soon see if that lasts). But government policy changed only marginally as a result; the executive and legislative branches were gridlocked in President Clinton's first two years in office when the Democrats controlled the House and stayed that way after the 1994 midterms.
In 1974, the voters protested Watergate and Vietnam by tossing 48 Nixon-tainted Republican seats over to the Democrats, who already were in control. Democrats held on to the House for two more decades, but Republicans had an edge in presidential elections for the next 30 years. However, the Class of '74 did usher some big policy changes — notably in the campaign finance system (changes that were called reform back then but didn't quite work out that way).
A more typical midterm was 2002, dubbed the "Seinfeld election" after the sitcom that famously bragged it was about nothing. The freaky thing about 2002 was that such a vanilla campaign could follow not just the traumas of 9/11, but also the 2000 election, by far the most ambiguous and disputed modern presidential election. But for some reason, in 2002, voters were disengaged and there was a sense that great issues weren't on the table. Five months later, America declared war on Iraq.
This is not a Seinfeld year. Voters are paying attention and big issues are being debated, if you can get through the clutter of political marketing and spin. Between Sep. 5 and Oct. 3, the three network newscasts ran 83 campaign stories, compared with the 20 they did during a similar time in 2002, according to the Center for Media and Public Affairs.
But 2006 is also not a watershed year. Perhaps it might be dubbed the "Survivor" election: a bunch of people will get voted off the island, a different tribe may get the upper hand but the game will go on unchanged and in the same direction.
This midterm will not be a historic humdinger for several reasons. Even if the Democrats get control of the House by a large margin and slender control of the Senate, there will still be a Republican president whose vetoes will stand. So while it's possible selected and important Democratic measures might pass, like a hike in the minimum wage, the ship of state will not be changing course — it will be holding steady and steering for the port of 2008.
Polling and common sense also tells us the voters are deeply disenchanted with both parties and with the institution of Congress, not just with George Bush and the Republicans. The voters will throw a lot of rascals off the island this year, but the new set of rascals will also be at risk. That makes realignment a pipe dream.
All this does mean that the dominant political architecture of the last, well, 38 years will stand — divided government.
I do not mean to trivialize this election by looking at it from a bird's-eye view so high that it implies I think the election and civic participation don't matter or that there isn't a lot at stake. There is. There also are many interesting, important questions beyond, "Who's going to win?"
How loud and clear will the rejection of Bushism be? Will the Gusto Gap play out with disenchanted Republicans staying home and irate Democrats turning out? Has the use of those poorly named "moral values" issues as wedge issues played itself out?
My greatest interest, idiosyncratic I know, is whether the results will portend an opening for a credible third-party candidate in 2008 — because I think the two parties have proven amply and repeatedly that realignments of the balance of power between them will not and cannot redirect government in the way the vast majority of voters want.
Dick Meyer, a veteran political and investigative producer for CBS News, is the editorial director of CBSNews.com, based in Washington, D.C.
E-mail questions, comments, complaints, arguments and ideas to
Against the Grain. We will publish some of the interesting (and civil) ones, sometimes in edited form.
By Dick Meyer
18 Comments +
Popular Now in CBSNews.com
- Spain's lost generation: Young, jobless, desperate
- Nunsense: Pope errs in rebuking sisters
- Special operations in golden age under Obama
- American dystopia more reality than fiction
- Unmanned drones making U.S. a Predator nation
- Israel-Iran: Bombs away?
- CBS Poll: Obama Leads, But...
- Bizarro history: The Rough Rider as socialist stooge
- What's with the left's rejection of vigilante films?
- Will SCOTUS usher a return to the "Lochner era"?
- Surveillance State, U.S.A.
- Is student loan, education bubble next?
- Beware the boom in American "declinism"
- How to respond when a gunman roams the halls
- You bet Apple could build the iPhone here
- Action film "Hunger Games" dodges action scenes
