Yes, I know; another article about what the outcome of the 2009 Presidential race meant is not exactly what the pundit-universe needs today. There are hundreds and hundreds of articles out there about this. <\/p>\n
But please allow me to air my belated thoughts on this subject, based upon six months of actual governing by the winner, Barack Obama. FIRST: in terms of long-term significance, the race wasn’t between Barack Obama and John McCain; it was between Obama and the previous President, George W. Bush. SECOND: Obama won! Not a big surprise, given that the economy under President Bush was visibly collapsing during most of the election campaign. THIRD: The Democrats also had big Congressional wins. This indicates that the public had given Obama a mandate to move away from Bush’s neo-conservative policies, especially regarding domestic and economic issues, allowing him to implement the more government-centered, welfare-focused programs favored by liberals; FOURTH: Obama is an extraordinarily talented orator, and many American voters feel good about such orators. FIFTH: What I believe, however, is that the biggest significance of the 2009 election is that the public had tired of Bush’s intellectual aridity and wanted a highly intelligent man in the White House. <\/p>\n
President Obama appears to believe that the THIRD factor is most important. He believes that the American public supports his vision of expanded government involvement in the economy (and also in private life; how can one not involve the other?). It will be interesting to see if this pans out. There are some early (but still unreliable) indications that a majority of voters do NOT feel they were giving Obama such a mandate. The mid-term Congressional elections in 2010 will be a key test on this issue. <\/p>\n
FOOTNOTE: McCain’s strategy during the election was not terribly intelligent. Instead of appealing to the center (where his reputation as an honest reformer might have gained some traction), he decided to \u201cmove back to the base\u201d, i.e. to pander to the neo-conservative and theo-conservative voting blocks around whom G.W. Bush crafted his election victories in 2000 and 2004. The key component of this \u201cback to base-ics\u201d plan was to select a Vice Presidential candidate who would greatly appeal to those right-wing groups, and yet help revive his image as a \u201cmaverick\u201d or a \u201cthink-outside-the-box\u201d guy. Obviously this strategy was fatally flawed; i.e., trying to stay \u201con base\u201d and yet move \u201coutside the box\u201d. Box \/ base; what’s the difference? It all fell apart as it became clear to the public that Sarah Palin was NOT big-league material. And neither was McCain, as was apparent in his thinking that she was.<\/p>\n
But leaving the Sarah Palin debacle aside and getting back to the present: even if America does not want the greatly expanded government network and welfare spending scheme that Obama currently proposes, we will still have a highly intelligent President. Hopefully, that prodigious intelligence will be applied by Mr. Obama to get things done and solve basic problems, in spite of having his vision rebuked.<\/p>\n