Clifford Orwin writes about Obama's great "refudiation" in the Globe and Mail

November 15, 2010

Sorry about the headline. I just couldn’t help it. Liberals made such fun of Sarah Palin’s gaffe, and who’s smiling now? “The Great Repudiation” is James Ceaser’s coinage, and you’ll find his astute reading of the U.S. midterm elections on realclearpolitics.com.

As even Freud conceded, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Sometimes a drubbing is just a drubbing. Accept no spinning: This was a bloodbath. You almost had to be Delaware’s Christine O’Donnell or Nevada’s Sharron Angle to lose as a Republican. A gain of at least 61 in the House, the largest swing since 1948 and the largest in a midterm election since 1938, and a gain of six in the Senate. The tsunami swamped not only the halls of Congress but also the statehouses and state legislatures. (These are crucial nationally because they control electoral redistricting.) Nor was there a rage against incumbents. Incumbent Republicans in Congress sat pretty. All but two survived, while more than 50 sitting Democrats perished. In softball, they’d invoke the mercy rule.

True, midterm elections don’t usually predict the ensuing presidential ones. Still, it’s clear the Democrats have two big problems. One is Barack Obama. The other is his program.

We shouldn’t exaggerate Mr. Obama’s supposed charisma. His biggest assets in 2008 were the grievous unpopularity of George W. Bush’s administration and the feeble campaigns of his opponents. True, he knew how to maximize the edge these gave him. But without Mr. Bush to run against in 2010, Mr. Obama and his party were reduced to running against … Mr. Bush. It only worked once. A poll in mainly Democratic Pennsylvania showed that Mr. Bush was now more popular than Mr. Obama. Teeth gnashed, proving a boon to local dentists.

This rout was on Mr. Obama’s head, no one else’s. It was clever of the GOP to highlight the always unpopular Nancy Pelosi, but Americans knew whose policies they were voting against. And make no mistake, that’s what they were doing.

Americans aren’t suddenly smitten with Republicans. This is cold comfort to Democrats, since it only underscores the voters’ rejection of their policies. Policies must not only work, they must be seen to work. Mr. Obama’s haven’t. He’s left with the worst of both worlds. The left says the recovery has sputtered because he didn’t pile up enough debt to stimulate it; the right says the debt already piled up has drowned any prospects of recovery. If he has an answer to either, he hasn’t succeeded in making it heard. As for health-care reform, it was a no-win issue. Spending all his political chips on it was a stunning tactical error; it narrowed any possible electoral coalition behind him.

Contrary to fashionable opinion, American voters aren’t idiots. They confirmed that by defeating Ms. Angle and Ms. O’Donnell. The question on the table this year was clear: Was the public confident (as it had resoundingly affirmed in the comparable midterm election of 1934) that the President’s policies were effectively addressing an ongoing national crisis? Yet, the outcome resembled the election of 1938, when it was clear that the New Deal had not produced a lasting recovery. The voters are as disenchanted with Mr. Obama’s policies after just two years as they were with Franklin Roosevelt’s after six. The war in Europe saved FDR (and the U.S. economy). Can anything save Mr. Obama?

A jobful recovery, for one thing. A bad Republican candidate, for another. The Republicans just have to learn from the defeats of Ms. Angle and Ms. O’Donnell. The Tea Party has revitalized a moribund Republican Party. The Democrats can only envy their enthusiasm. But to lose two gimme elections concentrates the mind. Americans have no time for right-wing wackos. Either conservatives learn that lesson, now so fresh, or their short-term memory loss makes things easy for the Democrats.

By Clifford Orwin.

The article is available online at globeandmail.com.