Turbulence Zone

Marble slabs on the floor in the corridors of the House of Representatives of the U.S. Congress have been erased to the ground but remade at least twice already. In the Senate, the marble floors of one and a half centuries are still in fair condition. Congress historian, Dr. Fred Beuttler, reminded journalists about this before the election on Nov. 2 to emphasize that the Founding Fathers of the American States originally assigned two legislative chambers of different roles.

The House of Representatives lives at a frantic pace. Its full composition — 435 persons in all — is the crucible of the elections every two years. All members of the House, without exception, are elected by direct vote of citizens in their districts. The point is simple: they should be as close as possible to the people and accurately reflect their mood at any given moment.

Incidentally, the first article of the U.S. Constitution is devoted not to the executive, but to the legislative power of Congress. So, as Beuttler believes, the history of the country may be seen not through the traditional prism of changing presidents, but through the evolution of Congress, where the current convocation of the House of Representatives is the 111th in a row.

By this logic, members of the House are elected for a term of two years, the president of the country for four years (with the possibility of re-election for another four), and the senators for six years. It is obviously absurd for Congress to hope to be effective by waiting around, seeing as it has a different task: to provide comprehensive public discussion of the country’s problems, while taking into account a variety of perspectives, including divergent positions with the government.

If the House of Representatives’ role, as originally assigned, is to act as a sensitive barometer of the changing political climate in the U.S., then the Senate’s role is designed to ensure continuity in the work of Congress and equal representation of states. Each of the 50 states — from California with 37 million inhabitants to Wyoming with 500,000 — has two senators. Conscious of the gravity of their position and work, even they usually go along their corridors majestically unhurried.

The law allows for the appointment rather than election of senators when they retire. In the current Senate, four of such appointees include the temporary replacement for Barack Obama, who became president. Therefore, the election on Nov. 2 will be contested by thirty-seven Senate seats. In general, a third of the Senate is regenerated every two years.

It is important to understand that this whole complex system was consciously designed in such a form. Each “wheel” in it values its special role, functions and prerogatives. And the history of the United States confirms that the policy of any president depends largely on whether his party controls the White House in addition to Congress, or at least one of its chambers. Obama’s situation initially was almost perfect: the same movement for change that propelled him to the American political Olympus also secured his party: the Democrats sustained an advantage in votes in the Senate (currently 59 versus 41), and the House of Representatives (255 versus 178).

The same historical experience shows that any president tends to be the most fruitful in the first year after receipt or reaffirmation of the mandate. Obama generally began the start of his presidency successfully.

Nevertheless, the White House shouldn’t expect anything good from the upcoming elections. The mood of American voters is now as gloomy as a cloud. The miracles, which many seem to have spontaneously come to expect from the first-ever African-American leader — young, charming and eloquent — in fact did not happen, and in Afghanistan and Iraq, American soldiers continue to be killed. The unemployment rate in the U.S., according to official figures, varies around a mark of 10 percent, but unofficial figures are almost twice as high. In the country, poverty, hunger and wealth inequality are rapidly growing.

In these circumstances, even yesterday’s allies of the current president have said to him in pre-election meetings that they are tired of waiting and hoping. They are disappointed not only in him and his policies, but also in their own chances for the implementation of the “American Dream.”

Against this backdrop, observers in the U.S. are wondering mostly about how tangible and enduring political losses will be for the Democrats. The main conclusions are that in the Senate they will be able to defend minimal superiority, but in the House to do the same will be much harder. Veteran local political analyst Charlie Cook said that the Democratic Party may suffer even greater losses than in 1994 when it lost 52 seats in the House. Forty new seats will be enough for the Republicans to get a majority.

But serious people here do not believe in the longevity of the expected changes. The wave that carried Obama crashed, amounting to nothing. The “Republican Revolution” of George W. Bush’s presidency, which recently proclaimed “international-historical rightness” of their political and economic models, lost a large part of its international prestige and influence when the government was forced to seize the levers to resolve the economy. All of this strengthens the domestic political polarization and radicalization of American society. And it has not seemed to bring the U.S. closer to the exit of this “zone of political turbulence.”

Extrapolating the results of the upcoming vote of the 2012 elections by local specialists is also not advised. Rather, they resemble a chorus that “backsliding” on the midterm elections is more the norm for the president’s party in modern U.S. history.

The defeat of the Democrats in 1994 under Bill Clinton was mentioned. And in 1982 under Ronald Reagan, in an economic downturn and 10 percent unemployment, the Republicans lost 27 seats in the House of Representatives. Incidentally, the White House considers the most correct comparison for now to be with the elections in 1982.

It is understandable why a parallel flatters the current administration: Reagan (and Clinton) later easily won re-election and gained a reputation as two of the best presidents in modern history. Now Obama hopes to repeat their experience and is already “working on the first term bugs.”