The Upcoming Elections
Peter Schultz
April 24, 2014
Almost
everyone seems to think that upcoming elections, what are called the “off year
elections,” because there is no presidential election, are important. More
precisely, it is said quite often and probably every day somewhere that the
senatorial elections are most important, the supposition being that if the
Republicans take over the Senate or the Democrats hold on to the Senate
majority, something important will have happened. And, of course, this is based
on the idea that if the Republicans take over the majority in the Senate,
important changes are forthcoming. I respectfully dissent.
I don’t
think that anything of much importance will change if the Republicans take over
the Senate. Why? Well, my sample is limited, but in investigating those who are
seeking the Republican nomination in my home state of North Carolina, I
discovered that, with a few, very few, exceptions, these people will continue
to support the major aspects of the prevailing political agenda and will,
therefore, become, quite quickly and comfortably, members of the prevailing
political class.
“The major
aspects of the prevailing political agenda,” I say, knowing that most will
shake their heads in bewilderment that someone would think that there is, in
these intensely divisive times, anything like a prevailing political agenda. Ah,
but there is, and all the intense rhetoric that is spent by Republicans and
Democrats to convince us that D.C. is a deeply divided place serves only to
hide this agenda. So, it certainly looks like Republicans and Democrats are
deeply divided and it sounds like that too. But in this case, appearances and
sounds are deceiving.
Let me take
one example, one often thought to divide the two parties in a way that is
immune to compromise or accommodation, “Obamacare” or the Affordable Care Act.
It is thought, because it sounds and looks like, Republicans and Democrats
occupy two, fundamentally opposed positions here, with the Republicans prepared
to jettison the ACA as soon as they have majorities in the House, the Senate,
and a Republican president. But the interesting thing is that few, and
certainly not a majority of Republicans in the House and the Senate are
committed to ending the ACA in toto. And, of course, it is always unwise to
confuse votes which don’t matter, that is, which won’t change anything in
reality, with what those representatives or senators would do in a vote that
did matter. Nor is it obvious that a Republican president who manages to get
elected would support ending the ACA, any more than it was obvious that Obama
would end Bush II policies like the war on terror, torture, the war in
Afghanistan, whistle blowers, etc., etc., etc. And here is some confirmation
from none other than John Boehner:
“’Obamacare
is the law of the land. It is there and it has driven all types of changes in
our health care delivery system. You can’t recreate an insurance market
overnight,’ Boehner told
a group of his constituents at a Rotary Club meeting in his home district.
“
It will
useful for me to insert here a caveat, which will also surprise a lot of
people. One thought it is useful to get out of your head is the thought that
politicians look at elections as a way of guaranteeing change, even though that
is what they promise when they are seeking office. This is just not the case,
although it may be in some elections and for some of those seeking office. Most
politicians, especially the incumbents, which are the overwhelming majority of
those seeking office, look at elections as potentially dangerous events. Why?
Because these elections give the people the opportunity to “throw the bums
out,” as is said colloquially, and create a new political class who embrace a new political agenda. This
danger is particularly pronounced in times of popular distrust of government
and popular dissatisfaction, which is certainly the case today.
This is one
reason the rhetoric is so intense these days, to convince us that our
prevailing political class is devoted to change, even to big change. But, of
course, this cannot be the case because really big change would mean that a new
and different political class would take power and this class would embrace a
new and different political agenda. You know, something like a Tea Party take
over or an Occupy take over. Now that would be BIG CHANGE.
No comments:
Post a Comment