The midterm election results are mostly in, with just a few close races where the votes are still being counted.
It turns out Jack Wakeland was right about the Senate, where the Republicans have gained at least six seats and at most eight. The votes are still being counted in a very close Senate race in Washington, while Alaska is pretty certain to go for the Republicans—but I'm not sure what good that will do us, since it looks like Lisa Murkowski's improbable write-in campaign succeeded, and she campaigned as the establishment candidate who would keep bringing home the pork.
I was more or less right about the House: I had predicted a Republican gain of at least 60 seats and probably 70. It looks like the final result will be between 63 and 67.
This is a very big number, the biggest in something like 70 years, and the new Republican majority in the House will be bigger than it was after the "Republican Revolution" in 1994. So we should not be disappointed—despite some of the wilder speculation (including my own) about races that might have gone our way in a really extraordinary year. The races I singled out as potential bellwethers of a really enormous election "wave" did not come through. Anna Little didn't win in New Jersey, nor did Art Robinson in Oregon, or, sadly, Stephen Bailey in Colorado. Sean Bielat didn't beat Barney Frank, and voters in Michigan extended the Dingell dynasty into its eight decade. I have to admit that I'm not too broken up about Christine O'Donnell's loss in the Delaware Senate race—she had a lot of problems personally, as a candidate, and she was far too religious.
There are already some complaints that Tea Party-backed candidates like O'Donnell and Sharron Angle lost races that might have been won by more "mainstream" Republicans. Maybe so, but that didn't cost the Republicans control of the Senate. Races in Colorado and California were equally responsible—and the people of California just voted Governor Moonbeam back into office, so we can pretty much give up on them. Moreover, I was glad to see these "Tea Party" candidates win their primaries, if only to serve notice to the Republican establishment that we will sooner back rough-edged and flawed candidates who stand for small government than embrace candidates from the big-government wing of the party. That's worth losing two Senate seats for, especially since it didn't make the difference in getting a Senate majority.
And keep the big picture in mind: this was still a very big wave, and the small-government side did very well.
In the Senate, Ayn Rand fan Ron Johnson beat anti-free-speech socialist Russ Feingold. In Pennsylvania, staunch free-marketer Pat Toomey took "Benedict Arlen" Specter's old seat. In Kentucky, Rand Paul won decisively. He's my Aqua Buddha. And it's easy to forget, because this race wasn't really contested, that Mike Lee was elected to the Senate from Utah. He's the guy who unseated an establishment Republican incumbent in the primary, on the strength of Tea Party backing. We can expect all of these people to be solid members of the "DeMint Caucus" of radical small-government Republicans. The other two members are Tom Coburn and Jim DeMint himself, both of whom were re-elected handily.
There was other goods news from the Senate. Marco Rubio beat unprincipled independent Charlie Crist. Mark Kirk is a wishy-washy "moderate" Republican—but he won President Obama's Senate seat for the opposition party, which is a nice symbolic victory. And in Nebraska, Blanche Lincoln got wiped out as direct punishment for voting for ObamaCare.
In the House, there were victories for some real firebrands like Allen West in Florida. The "blue dog" Democrats—who campaigned as conservatives and then gave Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank a majority—were thinned out severely: losers include Bobby Bright in Alabama, Ike Skelton in Missouri, and Walt Minnick in Idaho. Minnick was famous as the only Democrat to be able to claim Tea Party backing, but voters apparently decided that if they wanted a small-government conservative, they might as well vote for a Republican. One of the only prominent blue dogs left in Congress, North Carolina's Heath Schuler, is now challenging Pelosi for leadership of the remaining Democrats in Congress. He won't succeed, because with the purging of the blue dogs, the Democratic Congress is now farther to the left than it was before the election.
Democrats who stuck their necks out to vote for ObamaCare also had a bad day. Among those who lost because of their health care votes were Baron Hill in Indiana, Zack Space in Ohio, and last but not least Tom Perriello in my own backyard, Virginia's fifth district. Republicans did well across Virginia, also defeating Glenn Nye and 14-term incumbent Rick Boucher.
There were several other senior Democrats and Democratic leaders who were knocked out, including Jim Oberstar in Minnesota. In Wisconsin, Republican Sean Duffy won retiring Democratic leader David Obey's seat. In Florida, leftist loudmouth Alan Grayson was roundly defeated, and in New Jersey, John Adler lost after attempting to save himself by fielding a fake Tea Party candidate to siphon off conservative votes.
Overall, the effect is what we wanted: a repudiation of the Democratic agenda—which is exactly what voters told NBC News:
Paul Gentry of Danville, Va., said he voted for Republican Robert Hurt to unseat Democratic Rep. Tom Perriello because "I thought Perriello was too close to the Obama administration, and I'm not too happy with a lot of the things they've done."Exit polling data indicated that nearly four in 10 voters said they backed Republican House candidates as a way to thumb their nose at Obama, but David Hyde, also of Danville, identified two other villains: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Pelosi of California. Hyde said he backed Hurt because Perriello "has just went along with whatever Reid and Pelosi wanted."...
Specifically, voters said they held Obama and Pelosi responsible for the economy and for the health care overhaul....
"The health thing for the elderly is a real turning point," Tim Shulze said over breakfast at a diner in Columbus, Ohio. "That health care bill got the elderly out—they didn't care for it—and I think that was the big thing on Obama," Shulze said.
This is great progress—but it is not victory. All of the evidence is that Obama will dig in to defend his agenda, and the "K Street" big-government lobbyists will launch an effort to co-opt the incoming freshman Republicans. We must remember that this is just the first of the three elections that will be required to turn around the political direction of this country. And the real battle will not be won in the elections themselves. Shortly after President Obama took office, Tony Blankley wrote a brilliant column in which he pointed out that the "Reagan Revolution" was not won in November of 1980. It was won in subsequent years as Reagan got credit for the successful results of his policies. Blankley then projected that Obama's legacy would be won or lost as he actually implemented his policies—which is exactly what happened. The same will hold true for congressional Republicans. As Churchill said after the Battle of El-Alamein, "This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning." The enemies of liberty have been advancing relentlessly for two years, and they have just been pushed back and brought to a standstill. Now is when the real battle begins. So what should Republicans do? What should be the centerpiece of their legislative agenda? I'll answer that question in the next edition of TIA Daily, but first I want to draw an important implication for readers of TIA Daily. The fact that this battle is just beginning means that TIA's extensive election coverage will be followed by coverage of the jockeying for power in the new Congress, which is already in full swing, and the fireworks that will ensue—both within the Republican majority and between Republicans and Democrats—when the new Congress convenes in January. This is the point at which advocates of capitalism and limited government will need to summon as much moral confidence as they can muster. Which means this is the point at which those who are inspired by Ayn Rand's vision and philosophy will be most crucially needed in the debate. You need to be involved—and you need TIA Daily there to back you up. If you are receiving this version of today's Daily, you're still on our free list. Starting early next week, a lot of our political coverage is going to be available for subscribers only. We'll still send you occasional updates and "lite" versions of TIA Daily, but you'll miss out on the full breadth of our coverage. So subscribe now. You don't want to be on the sidelines of the battle for liberty now that it's really beginning. Help us continue to bring TIA's commentary to a wider audience and to be a vigorous voice for liberty at this crucial time—especially at a time when we will need to make sure there are strong, independent Objectivist institutions that can act effectively to make a principled, moral case for capitalism. Please support TIA in this mission. In our next edition, I will suggest one simple agenda item that will encapsulate all of the essential political, economic, and ideological issues at stake, and which should be the center of the Republican agenda. This article will be continued in the next edition of TIA Daily.
0 comments:
Post a Comment