Tidal waves, historic gains, and “damned fool idealistic crusades,” Part 1

By Cliff Smith

It’s been about three weeks since the historic 2010 elections that saw Republicans gain at least 62 seats in the House (a few remain undecided), the largest gain in a single election since 1938 and far more then the 39 seats necessary to gain control of the chamber. Republicans now have more seats in the House than they have at any time since 1948. In addition, they picked up six seats in the Senate and six governorships. Finally, the GOP gained over 600 seats in state legislatures around the country, a historically unprecedented feat. It was certainly a wave for the books, the repercussions of which will be felt for years or even decades.

Yet there is no concensus as to the significance of the elections. Many Democrats dismissed the outcome as an accident of history, attributable to a combination of natural pullback from their successes in 2006 and 2008 and a bad economy.  Republicans are dismayed at the outcomes of a few races, particularly in the Senate, in which they expected victories that didn’t ultimately materialize, and of several House and gubernatorial races they lost, largely because of third party participation.  Also, a few were wondering, perhaps expecting, something totally unprecedented to happen when the Gallup generic ballot numbers showed the Republicans up by 15%.

So what did happen?

First of all, the interpretation of some Democrats as the election being an accident explained by a bad economy and good elections in 2006 and 2008 is pure nonsense, and most Democrats who live outside dark blue territory know it. Having won so many victories in swing districts over the past two cycles made it easier for Republicans to pick up big numbers, but that doesn’t explain the size of the wave.  If there was any group who took a bigger beating then freshman and sophomore Democrats in Congress, it was longtime, entrenched incumbents in swing districts, all of whom survived the 1994 tidal wave. Rep. Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota was a freshman when the 1994 wave hit and survived.  He won’t be coming back to Congress. Reps. John Spratt of South Carolina and Rick Boucher of Virginia each served 28 years and both fairly easily survived the 1994 tidal wave.  Neither of them are going back either. Reps. Jim Oberstar of Minnesota and Ike Skelton of Missouri, both now committee chairman, survived not only the 1994 tidal wave but also the 1980 Reagan landslide.  Both have now been retired by force. This list is not exhaustive.

Neither can the economy cannot explain these defeats.  The economy was, depending on the measure, nearly as bad or even worse in 1982, and the Republicans didn’t take near the beating the Democrats did, even relative to the size of their delegation.  Similarly, the poor economy of 1978 had little effect and the Republicans gained only a few seats, even with historic Democratic gains in 1974 and 1976 and a seemingly bumbling President who ran on a platform not all that different from “hope and change.”

In fact, message mattered a great deal, and voters were clearly not happy with the major planks of Obama’s agenda – - the stimulus, which they saw as emblematic of runaway Government spending; the health care bill, which they saw as emblematic of both runaway spending, taxing and excessive Government intrusion into their lives; and Cap and Trade, which they saw as essentially a cap on economic growth. This is evidenced, not only by Republican wins, but on how the Democrats ran.  Few Democrats ran on their support of these initiatives, even in Democratic leaning seats, and the few that did in even remotely competitive seats lost, most prominently including soon to be former Rep. Jim Oberstar and soon to be former Sen. Russ Feingold.

The election wasn’t an embrace of any Republican reforms so much as it was a complete rejection of Democratic ones.  P. J. O’Rourke mused that the election was less an election, and more a “restraining order” against Democrats. Although not an embrace of Republican reforms, it was a mandate to resist the direction in which Democrats are moving the country.  The simple Republican message of opposition to the policies of the past two years, particularly the “big three” of stimulus, Obamacare and Cap and Trade, was clear, consistent, and the foundation of virtually every successful campaign.  Far from being a substance-free campaign, it was actually one of the more substantive campaigns in recent memory. Voters’ made their priorities and their positions on the issues abundantly clear. The message they sent in 2010 was unambiguous.

In fact, voters in some districts rejected incumbents who didn’t support the Democratic agenda, but insufficiently opposed it. Just as soon to be former Rep. Gene Taylor, who had held down a very conservative district for over two decades.  All his opponent had to do was run ads of him voting for Pelosi for speaker, even though he opposed the “big three” and had ratings similar to moderate-to-conservative Republicans from various conservative organizations.

Part 2 will appear tomorrow.