Election Reaction: Calls for Compromise

After any election that changes the balance of power there is the inevitable call from both sides to compromise and work together to "get things done". There are a number of problems with this mentality that this election should have highlighted to the powers that be:

1. "Getting things done" means different things to different groups. To liberals, it means using government to fix perceived problems. To conservatives (especially in this election cycle) it means reigning in government which they perceive as the problem. There is something to be said for not getting things done if what is being done is unpalatable. The idea that these two philosophies can be easily reconciled is laughable.

2. Compromise doesn't just mean meeting in the middle. If someone were to say to you, "I would like to punch you in the gut ten times," you would tell them to get lost (or something more colorful). If the person came back and said, " OK, how about I only punch you in the gut five times," your answer wouldn't change. You find getting punched unacceptable. It doesn't matter how many times, or where you would get hit, you won't budge. This is how many people (especially in the current polarized situation) feel about politics. A conservative doesn't want the government involved in health care at all, so a liberal offering to remove the "public option" to sweeten the deal is not compromise.

3. Compromise is about fine tuning details to appeal to multiple groups, not adjusting ideology. At the end of the day, liberals and conservatives are going to agree on very little in terms of broad sweeping policies. The Democrats unilaterally enacted the health care overhaul despite polling showing that the people didn't want it. The people have spoken and removed the Democrats from power as a fairly clear signal that they did not approve of what had been done. If the Democrats had unilaterally pushed something through that Americans accepted in principle, but had some quirks to be worked out, there would not have been 60 House seats changing hands. Voters don't mind a little haggling over details, but they don't want to compromise on their principles.

4. Compromise is just another way of saying "maintain the establishment". Much like children, politicians don't like change. As power switches between parties, very little changes. The two "compromise" with each other and merge toward the middle. During the next election, voters decide that they don't like what is happening, so they vote to put the other party in power. Yet again the parties merely meet in the middle and nothing really changes. They fail to understand that voters don't like the middle. If they did, power wouldn't change hands so frequently. You can't please everyone and when you try you end up with an approval rating of less than 25%. The Tea Party is a prime example of the dissatisfaction with the status quo. Why have a vote if you're just going to do something that nobody likes? What's the point of having a majority if the majority doesn't rule?

5. What constitutes compromise is decided by the party in power. Congress still has not passed a budget. This is perhaps one of the few things where meaningful compromise is achievable. For example, both parties agree that the DOT needs money to operate. How much money is certainly up for debate as there is disagreement as to just what that money is needed for, but the at the end of the day the government has to be funded and a consensus reached (or pushed through unilaterally). Instead, Congress has wasted time on stimulus spending, health care reform and other projects favored by the liberals. The liberals were in power, they got to set the bar for what would be compromised on. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, it is just important to realize that "compromise" is not some warm fuzzy activity where everyone is on the same page and coming from the same place.

6. True compromise is nearly impossible in a two party system. The two parties represent (in theory) polar opposites. There is rarely going to be an issue on which polar opposites can agree. If there were different degrees of conservative and liberal there could be compromises reached that might appeal to segments of each group. However, the desire to maintain "party unity" in order to maintain power generally keeps members of Congress on their respective sides of the aisle except when they come together on something that benefits the establishment without regard for what their party supposedly stands for.

Election Reaction: Polarization of Congress

Among the many impacts of the 2010 Midterms appears to be a further polarization of Congress. Many of the Democratic losses last night came from moderate Democrats. In addition, due to the influence of the Tea Party, many Republican victories went to Tea Party backed candidates or establishment candidates who moved further to the right in order to appeal to their more conservative base. This leaves fewer moderates between the conservative and liberal sides, raising questions as to how this will affect the coming term and even the lame duck session.

One of the biggest issues is how the Tea Party will interact with the establishment, particularly the GOP. There has been a lot of talk about shaking things up and changing Washington coming from newly elected conservatives. However, Tea Party candidates are still a small minority in Congress and will need to rely on conservative establishment members if they hope to have a real impact in the immediate future. It will be a fine line between upholding the conservative principles that got them elected, and working within the existing system to implement the policies that they promote. The key will be how the Republican party reacts to the new members. Many believe that the party's best hope is to realign themselves more to the right, embrace the movement and get back to their conservative roots. Others feel that the only way to pass legislation is with the help of the establishment and that compromise and moderation will be forced upon the new class. It would seem that the latter option is very dangerous. If voters feel that the change the conservative candidates peddled was merely rhetoric and that they are corrupted by the system, 2012 could spell trouble for the GOP. Either another round of more conservative Tea Party candidates will beat out established candidates in primaries, or conservatives will become disillusioned and just stay home. In any case, the Republicans have a choice to make.

Election Reaction: Tea Party Costs Republicans?

In the wake of last night's election, there is big debate over whether Tea Party wins in primaries cost Republicans victories in the general election. There seems to have been mixed results as Rubio and Paul won out while Angle and O'Donnell failed to defeat their Democratic opponents. Many argue that had Mike Castle beaten O'Donnell in the Delaware primary, the Republicans would now control that Senate seat. The same is argued for a primary victory by Sue Lowden in Nevada. Either of these situations could very well have happened, but there is no way to know for sure. In any case, the problematic part of this debate is that it ignores the very reason that these Tea Party candidates won the primaries in the first place: the Republicans were no longer seen as conservatives by their party base.

To a conservative voter the question of whether or not the Tea Party candidates cost the Republican party is irrelevant. This election was about voting for a conservative, not a Republican. This fixation on the party is exactly why the Tea Party came about in the first place. Too many Republicans forgot what the party used to stand for: lower taxes and smaller government. The bailout bill was too much for some to take and they realized that their Republican representatives no longer shared their views. So they mobilized and put forth truly conservative candidates in the primaries and managed to oust establishment candidates.

From the beginning there were grumblings from the GOP that such conservatives were unable to win in the general election or that they were too far to the right for the average voter. But that wasn't the point. Conservative voters were sick of sending moderates to Washington who abandoned their principles in the name of "party unity" or "bipartisan compromise". In particular, Mike Castle was very unpalatable to conservatives and was considered one of, if not the most liberal Republican in the House. In the mind of voters, it was better to take a chance on someone who actually shared their views rather than be guaranteed to have someone who only pretended to.

In the end, Angle and O'Donnell failed to win and Democrats retained a majority in the Senate. However, the important message has been sent, particularly in Nevada where the election was rather close. Conservative voters want a conservative, not a Republican. If the Republican is a conservative, great. But if it comes down to principles or the party, principles might finally start to win out.