“This Was a Protest Vote against Obama” [Interview with Nicole Bacharan]
Published in Le Nouvel Observateur
(France) on 4 November 2010
by Sarah Halifa-Legrand (link to
original)
The electoral setback that has just wiped out the Democrats during the midterm elections does not mean that Obama will lose in 2012, explains historian and political scientist Nicole Bacharan to Nouvelobs.com.
How do you explain the electoral setback that just wiped out the Democrats during the midterm elections? Was it simply a protest vote against Obama?
It was essentially a protest vote. Among his voters in 2008, many have switched sides, others have not. Barack Obama has disappointed them, especially with regards to the severity of the economic crisis in the United States. That’s the explanation for most of this vote.
There are 15 million unemployed, with more than double that who have stopped looking for work, are underemployed or are working only part-time. Many Americans are losing their homes while seeing banks become profitable once again. Additionally, many have lost the retirement they had invested in pension funds.
And yet, they are not seeing the effects of the measures taken by the Obama administration. I don’t think any American president could have gotten the country out of the economic crisis faster, but he’ll be paying for it for the duration of this political period. Just like he'll pay for the ability, though on the whole limited, of politicians to act on the economy.
But his policies, in particular, are also responsible for this vote as they raised many doubts: Will the profound deficits further plunge the country into crisis? Will the economic stimulus plan be enough? These are the sorts of questions certain Democrats are asking.
The importance of the economy in American elections is nothing new, however. The healthy economy and Bill Clinton’s 1996 reelection were far from unrelated. On the other hand, if George Bush, Sr. lost for any reason in 1992, it was largely due to the recession.
These results also provide information about the state of the Democrat and Republican parties. What lessons can we learn there?
Concerning the Democrats, you can bet that they’ll have a candidate in 2012, and it seems to me that it should be Barack Obama. First, because he will likely reformulate his economic policies and attempt to muster the Democrat troops supporting him. Second, because even though he disappointed some of the people in his own camp, the Democrats know he is their only chance to win in 2012. There is also a highly personal calculation behind this: They know that if they lose the presidential election, they risk losing their own seats as well.
Whereas in the Republican camp, they appear to have been united by this victory. But no one can predict the behavior of the elected tea partiers, who in large part are lacking political experience and take on positions that are far from shared by all Republicans. If they prove to be inflexible, they could be a divisive factor in the Republican Party.
The Democrats have lost the majority in the House of Representatives and Congress is at risk of a deadlock. Is there nevertheless a means of avoiding this?
We’re certainly heading toward a power struggle. But there are ways of avoiding these obstacles. First of all, the American system is largely presidential: It’s the president who sets the legislative agenda, he retains the right to veto and governs foreign policy. Regarding this last point, some of Obama’s positions are more heavily supported by Republicans than Democrats, as is the case with Afghanistan. But his international stature is bound to suffer from this electoral setback, as will his ability to rally participants in the Middle East conflict, for example.
Yet Obama and Republicans alike say they are prepared to work together. However, it is hard to know if the Republican side is sincere. The question arises of whether it will be Obama or John Boehner, the Republican set to become Speaker of the House, to blame the other for the deadlock. All of this will play out during this political wrestling match.
But it’s certain that even if this impasse can be avoided, this vote still marks the end of major reforms. All eyes are now fixed on the budget vote that might very well lead to a deadlock itself. The health care reform will also play a part during that vote. The Republicans, who are viscerally opposed to this reform, may refuse a portion of its funding.
In obtaining the majority in the House, the Republicans are leaving behind their role of simply being the opposition and will need to take a stand. Could this be Obama’s lucky break in 2012?
Of course. The tea partiers have taken on positions that are so extreme that they will either be forced to renege on their promises, or try to lead Republicans towards untenable positions, since we know very well that the election will take place around the center. Moreover, the Republicans are making a brusque transition from opposing to participating in legislative power and do not have a well-defined program, which is another divisive factor. They want less government, less spending, less deficit, but with regards to these points, there is no common stance.
What lessons can Barack Obama learn from this defeat?
He will have to continue to sell his successes even more than he has been; he will have to be constantly campaigning. The health care reform is a good example of this shortcoming: Once the reform passed, it was wrong to think the battle was won, giving Republicans free reign to shout from the rooftops that the reform was disastrous.
He has to dig up that ability to emit a sense of warmth, that closeness with his electors that he showed during his presidential campaign.
Politically, he needs to move toward the center and reach a compromise with the Republicans. He’ll need to follow Bill Clinton’s example by increasing the number of lunches and phone calls with his opponents. Though he has yet to do so, he appears to be ready to tackle this field. At least that’s what the first photo released after the defeat seems to say. The image of a smiling, cool and collected Obama on the phone with John Boehner speaks for itself.
Interview with Nicole Bacharan* by Sarah Halifa-Lagrand
*Nicole Bacharan, historian and political scientist specializing in American society, is the author of "Les Noirs américains. Des champs de coton à la Maison Blanche," Perrin edition, 2010.
How do you explain the electoral setback that just wiped out the Democrats during the midterm elections? Was it simply a protest vote against Obama?
It was essentially a protest vote. Among his voters in 2008, many have switched sides, others have not. Barack Obama has disappointed them, especially with regards to the severity of the economic crisis in the United States. That’s the explanation for most of this vote.
There are 15 million unemployed, with more than double that who have stopped looking for work, are underemployed or are working only part-time. Many Americans are losing their homes while seeing banks become profitable once again. Additionally, many have lost the retirement they had invested in pension funds.
And yet, they are not seeing the effects of the measures taken by the Obama administration. I don’t think any American president could have gotten the country out of the economic crisis faster, but he’ll be paying for it for the duration of this political period. Just like he'll pay for the ability, though on the whole limited, of politicians to act on the economy.
But his policies, in particular, are also responsible for this vote as they raised many doubts: Will the profound deficits further plunge the country into crisis? Will the economic stimulus plan be enough? These are the sorts of questions certain Democrats are asking.
The importance of the economy in American elections is nothing new, however. The healthy economy and Bill Clinton’s 1996 reelection were far from unrelated. On the other hand, if George Bush, Sr. lost for any reason in 1992, it was largely due to the recession.
These results also provide information about the state of the Democrat and Republican parties. What lessons can we learn there?
Concerning the Democrats, you can bet that they’ll have a candidate in 2012, and it seems to me that it should be Barack Obama. First, because he will likely reformulate his economic policies and attempt to muster the Democrat troops supporting him. Second, because even though he disappointed some of the people in his own camp, the Democrats know he is their only chance to win in 2012. There is also a highly personal calculation behind this: They know that if they lose the presidential election, they risk losing their own seats as well.
Whereas in the Republican camp, they appear to have been united by this victory. But no one can predict the behavior of the elected tea partiers, who in large part are lacking political experience and take on positions that are far from shared by all Republicans. If they prove to be inflexible, they could be a divisive factor in the Republican Party.
The Democrats have lost the majority in the House of Representatives and Congress is at risk of a deadlock. Is there nevertheless a means of avoiding this?
We’re certainly heading toward a power struggle. But there are ways of avoiding these obstacles. First of all, the American system is largely presidential: It’s the president who sets the legislative agenda, he retains the right to veto and governs foreign policy. Regarding this last point, some of Obama’s positions are more heavily supported by Republicans than Democrats, as is the case with Afghanistan. But his international stature is bound to suffer from this electoral setback, as will his ability to rally participants in the Middle East conflict, for example.
Yet Obama and Republicans alike say they are prepared to work together. However, it is hard to know if the Republican side is sincere. The question arises of whether it will be Obama or John Boehner, the Republican set to become Speaker of the House, to blame the other for the deadlock. All of this will play out during this political wrestling match.
But it’s certain that even if this impasse can be avoided, this vote still marks the end of major reforms. All eyes are now fixed on the budget vote that might very well lead to a deadlock itself. The health care reform will also play a part during that vote. The Republicans, who are viscerally opposed to this reform, may refuse a portion of its funding.
In obtaining the majority in the House, the Republicans are leaving behind their role of simply being the opposition and will need to take a stand. Could this be Obama’s lucky break in 2012?
Of course. The tea partiers have taken on positions that are so extreme that they will either be forced to renege on their promises, or try to lead Republicans towards untenable positions, since we know very well that the election will take place around the center. Moreover, the Republicans are making a brusque transition from opposing to participating in legislative power and do not have a well-defined program, which is another divisive factor. They want less government, less spending, less deficit, but with regards to these points, there is no common stance.
What lessons can Barack Obama learn from this defeat?
He will have to continue to sell his successes even more than he has been; he will have to be constantly campaigning. The health care reform is a good example of this shortcoming: Once the reform passed, it was wrong to think the battle was won, giving Republicans free reign to shout from the rooftops that the reform was disastrous.
He has to dig up that ability to emit a sense of warmth, that closeness with his electors that he showed during his presidential campaign.
Politically, he needs to move toward the center and reach a compromise with the Republicans. He’ll need to follow Bill Clinton’s example by increasing the number of lunches and phone calls with his opponents. Though he has yet to do so, he appears to be ready to tackle this field. At least that’s what the first photo released after the defeat seems to say. The image of a smiling, cool and collected Obama on the phone with John Boehner speaks for itself.
Interview with Nicole Bacharan* by Sarah Halifa-Lagrand
*Nicole Bacharan, historian and political scientist specializing in American society, is the author of "Les Noirs américains. Des champs de coton à la Maison Blanche," Perrin edition, 2010.