Here we are a day later, and many of the pundits are speaking of how this victory was a mandate. I will not debate the merits of it being a historical victory, as the Electoral College will elect a man of color for the first time. In some sense, that speaks volumes on how far our country has come but how far we still have yet to go.
I do take issue with calling Barack Obama’s victory a mandate. There is no mandate being delivered by his victory. If anything, I think this victory is the culmination of a long festering desire to return politics to the center. While the President is somewhat powerless in what is legislated by the Congress, he is still the embodiment of political leadership.
Personally, I have always viewed the American body politic as a centrist-entity with conservative tendencies. The last eight years have seen the fruits of the tree that was planted at the beginning of the Reagan Revolution of the late 1970s. Unfortunately, the Revolution for which standard-bearers such as William F. Buckley Jr. loudly trumpeted lost its way under the current Administration and Congress. The foreign policy of the Bush Administration is truly a mess, and it pains me to even think about it.
Still, I do not think that Obama’s victory means that, to borrow the lyrics from Irving Berlin’s “Blue Skies,” “Blue skies/Smiling at me/Nothing but blue skies/Do I see.” There are lessons in recent history that display what happens when members of the same party control both the Executive and Legislative branches of government. One only needs to look at the disappointing results of the first part of the first term of Bill Clinton for that lesson.
I sincerely hope that the words Obama uttered in his victory speech do not ring hollow:
Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long. Let us remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House — a party founded on the values of self-reliance, individual liberty and national unity. Those are values we all share, and while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress.
As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, “We are not enemies, but friends… Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection.” And, to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn, I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your president, too.
Even in defeat, John McCain’s words also reached a similar note:
I urge all Americans who supported me to join me in not just congratulating him, but offering our next president our goodwill and earnest effort to find ways to come together, to find the necessary compromises, to bridge our differences and help restore our prosperity, defend our security in a dangerous world, and leave our children and grandchildren a stronger, better country than we inherited.
Whatever our differences, we are fellow Americans. And please believe me when I say no association has ever meant more to me than that.
Maybe, for the first time in a very long time, our leaders can finally see beyond the differences of party–of red-state and blue state–and do what is necessary to address the important issues facing our country.
Obama won by seven and a half million votes, and 186 electoral votes. Compare this to George W. Bush, in 2004, who won the popular vote by two million and won the electoral vote by 35 … and declared he had a mandate.
Just because you say it is a mandate doesn’t make it one. The Reagan landslide in 1984 was a mandate, I can’t think of any election since as being one….
Snay: You’re missing the point. I do not think this victory is a mandate, but is instead a call for a return to the political center. I assure you, if Obama begins to govern from the left along the lines of those who believed they had mandates–Clinton in 1992–he will meet with certain defeat. Recall the first two years of the Clinton presidency, a presidency won with less than 50% of the popular vote and a number of electoral votes just over that projected for Obama (fivethirtyeight.com being my source). FYI: fivethirtyeight also only has Obama winning with just over 52% of the popular vote. Sorry, a simple majority does not a mandate make.
Do not proclaim this is some “mandate from the people.” The results of this election–one that I agree with–comes from widespread voter dissatisfaction coupled with large voter turnout from those 18-24 and African-American voters. If anyone proclaims it as a mandate for their agenda, they are walking on eggshells.
I’m going to have to side with Snay on this one; if Reagan had a mandate with 50.7% of the Popular Vote and 90.9% of the Electoral Vote, Obama has one with 52.5% of the Popular and 65% of the Electoral. So far; there are still two States unaccounted. Also, the primary reason for Reagan’s victory was that his campaign committed treason to get the hostages released AFTER the Election, etc, etc…
Regardless, the reason no one can resist calling this a “mandate” is that Bush claimed one in the last two elections with waaaaaaay less evidence, and everyone let him. That makes it irresistible for pundits now. And for me.
As to your other point, ANYONE would be be a move to the center from Bush, who is farther to the right than any President, ever.
Clinton won with less than 50% of the Popular vote because Perot had nearly 20%. Apples to oranges.
Just because Bush claimed a mandate doesn’t make it any more true than the Obama supporters claiming one.
jwer: Are you seriously trying to lump me in as some sort of Bush sympathist/apologetist? You must be joking, even if my voter registration betrays me. I have little issue with calling this a “mandate for change” in the broadest sense. To make it a “mandate for my party to do whatever it wants” is specious at best. If your historical studies are as good as mine, you will recall that Reagan had to deal with opposition in the legislative branch after his landslide victory in 1984.
As to your notion that I am comparing apples to oranges with the Clinton victory of 1992, I would argue that it is not that terribly different Perot’s support was a large difference maker for the Republican loss. Additionally, since Perot did not carry a single state, he received no votes in the Electoral College. Thus, my comparison with Obama from a percentage of the popular vote and the number of electoral votes is more correct than your abrupt dismissal. Clinton received just over 48% of the popular vote compared to Obama’s just over 52% (again, using fivethirtyeight for the latter figure). Since we both know the electoral college is “where it’s at,” my comparison rings more true.
In any event, I stick to my guns about hoping that this mandate does not become the vehicle for partisan politics–the main point of my screed. I voted for Obama because I wanted a different perspective on the economy than a bunch of neo-supply-siders, because I wanted a more internationalist foreign policy, and because I wanted a more detached (from the demands of certain religious entities) domestic policy. In other words, if Obama is half the President his website and speeches have come to tout, then we are well on our way.
JJT: I don’t think you’re going to find Obama pursuing a partisan agenda, frankly, I think he’s going to have so much shit on his desk on day one that he’s going to be more worried about righting the course of the country. Further, I think he’s smart and deliberate enough to realize that over reliance on a Democractic-controlled Congress (and let’s not forget that a lot of those Democrats are conservatives who switched to blue in 2006, like Jim Webb, and are unlikely to enact a left-wing agenda) isn’t going to be a winner for him: I think he’ll work with what remains of the GOP from that first day. Last, I think he tells the truth when he talks about making America purple — I really think he’s going to be a center (possibly center-left, but center) executive.
Paul – I never said Obama had a mandate. I just pointed out that the last guy we elected claimed he had a mandate when the margins were considerably narrower.
Nope, I was not lumping you in with anyone.
I was trying to explain why the press is incapable of NOT calling it a mandate. By extension, while I think Obama’s victory was numerically far more decisive than either of Bush’s, I don’t think ANYTHING is a mandate for a party to “do whatever it wants”, except maybe 100% of the vote with 100% participation, the disenfranchised allowed the vote, etc…
I guess it wasn’t entirely clear what you were objecting to… I thought you were simply objecting to the use of the word “mandate” as pundits are using it, so I thought I’d point out why they’re doing so. Then I got sidetracked by the comparison to Reagan, which I have always thought was a little spurious, and then you made the contrast with Clinton…
Anyway, if the election had been about Iraq, as it started to be, I think that there’d be a pretty damn clear mandate. But since the economy has very little to do with who’s in office, I’d tend to agree that there’s no “mandate”.
But really, what you should be objecting to is the use of “mandate” without any indication of what the word MEANS, ie: a mandate to do WHAT? Then I totally agree with you.
Oh — if there WAS A mandate, I think it would be to “elevate the political tone” in Washington.
Obama is not fit to run our country. McCain has had experience and has more knowledge than Barack Hussein Osama. To start off with… yes, Obama is muslin. He thinks there is 57 states. Muslims think there are 57 states. Coincidence?? I think not. He wont put his hand over his heart or say the pledge. Saying the pledge is honoring our country and those who fought for us. Obama has no idea what memorial day is either! AT his speech on Memorial Day he said “we are here to honor all who served for America and some who are still standing here today.” Memorial Day is to honor the dead. Most people voted for him because of his skin color. Honestly, I don’t care about the color of his skin. Everyone on here is talking about how racist people are for not voting for him for his skin color. He got thousands of votes based on his color. He says he goes to church where everyone is accepted. He doesn’t go to church; he just chose a church to say he went to church at. And the thing is that his PREACHER is RACIST AGAINST WHITE PEOPLE!!! So guess what! There’s racists everywhere and no matter what people say about his skin color, that’s why he won. If he were white I can guarantee you he wouldn’t have won because all the African Americans voted for him. So maybe you should all think and stop criticizing conservatives for voting based on skin color.