Edited by Jessica Boesl
The Rebellion of the Independents
Published in El Tiempo
(Colombia) on 26 January 2010
by Sergio Muñoz Bata (link to original)
One year after having won the presidential election and 10 months from mid-term elections which could change the composition of Congress and radically alter the priorities of the governmental program of President Barack Obama, the independent voters have given the Democratic party, the president and the nation, a forceful demonstration of their discontent and their political decision-making power.
Last week, the reverse took place in Massachusetts with the election for the Senate seat Democrat Ted Kennedy occupied for 46 years. Two months ago, the defeated were the Democratic candidates for governor of New Jersey and Virginia. Ironically, the three recent failures happened in three states that voted in favor of Obama in the 2008 presidential elections and where the polls show, despite adverse outcomes for his party, the president’s approval rating remains high.
More than for the obvious weaknesses of the candidates and their respective campaigns, the Democrats lost in those three states because independent voters, who constitute the majority, rebelled against the political party to which they had given their support just one year prior. Worse still, surveys indicate that the rebellion of independent voters could very well be extended across the entire nation.
Americans are worried about their economic situation; they are angry with Washington’s politicians who, incapable of putting aside partisan differences, wear themselves out in endless and unproductive debates rather than applying themselves to solving the real problems of the country. They fear the possible cost of health care system reform, the benefits of which they do not yet understand.
In this sense, for example, Sergio Bedixen, who frequently conducts surveys for the Democratic party, claims that, “unfortunately, the president does not have alternatives to offer on his proposal for universal health insurance and now that the reform as it has been raised is dead, Obama must concentrate his efforts to revive the economy and reduce unemployment.”
In his speeches after the Massachusetts fiasco, the president has said that he understands the problem, that he has heard the message of voters, that he will assume his leadership with a vigorous defense of the benefits of health care reform, and renew his efforts to reactivate the economy and lower unemployment.
The message of the voters is, however, difficult to reconcile in two aspects. On one hand, the people are saying that the government must not mingle in the issues that are of concern to the private sector and they remind politicians of the cost of bailing out the banks, planned and executed by the George W. Bush administration and extended by Obama, later including the automotive industry. It has served little to explain that the economic situation of the country would be worse if the government had washed their hands and not come to the rescue.
Given these circumstances and seeking to change the terms of political debate, the president has resumed his verbal battle against bankers and investors, accusing them of continuing to take advantage of the economic crisis and penalizing them. The problem is that, although the people feel a profound sense of distrust toward bankers and the financial institutions (according to the Gallup poll, only 18 percent trust them), they still do not understand what the president is going to do to prevent their abuses.
For the good of the country, Obama must respond to the rebellion of independents not with justifying explanations or with populist acts, but rather with concrete methods that will help stabilize the economic situation and restore confidence in institutions. What people expect from him is that he regains control of his party, that he leads his policy toward the center of the political spectrum and that he dedicates himself to solving the major national problems openly with moderates in the opposition party.
Last week, the reverse took place in Massachusetts with the election for the Senate seat Democrat Ted Kennedy occupied for 46 years. Two months ago, the defeated were the Democratic candidates for governor of New Jersey and Virginia. Ironically, the three recent failures happened in three states that voted in favor of Obama in the 2008 presidential elections and where the polls show, despite adverse outcomes for his party, the president’s approval rating remains high.
More than for the obvious weaknesses of the candidates and their respective campaigns, the Democrats lost in those three states because independent voters, who constitute the majority, rebelled against the political party to which they had given their support just one year prior. Worse still, surveys indicate that the rebellion of independent voters could very well be extended across the entire nation.
Americans are worried about their economic situation; they are angry with Washington’s politicians who, incapable of putting aside partisan differences, wear themselves out in endless and unproductive debates rather than applying themselves to solving the real problems of the country. They fear the possible cost of health care system reform, the benefits of which they do not yet understand.
In this sense, for example, Sergio Bedixen, who frequently conducts surveys for the Democratic party, claims that, “unfortunately, the president does not have alternatives to offer on his proposal for universal health insurance and now that the reform as it has been raised is dead, Obama must concentrate his efforts to revive the economy and reduce unemployment.”
In his speeches after the Massachusetts fiasco, the president has said that he understands the problem, that he has heard the message of voters, that he will assume his leadership with a vigorous defense of the benefits of health care reform, and renew his efforts to reactivate the economy and lower unemployment.
The message of the voters is, however, difficult to reconcile in two aspects. On one hand, the people are saying that the government must not mingle in the issues that are of concern to the private sector and they remind politicians of the cost of bailing out the banks, planned and executed by the George W. Bush administration and extended by Obama, later including the automotive industry. It has served little to explain that the economic situation of the country would be worse if the government had washed their hands and not come to the rescue.
Given these circumstances and seeking to change the terms of political debate, the president has resumed his verbal battle against bankers and investors, accusing them of continuing to take advantage of the economic crisis and penalizing them. The problem is that, although the people feel a profound sense of distrust toward bankers and the financial institutions (according to the Gallup poll, only 18 percent trust them), they still do not understand what the president is going to do to prevent their abuses.
For the good of the country, Obama must respond to the rebellion of independents not with justifying explanations or with populist acts, but rather with concrete methods that will help stabilize the economic situation and restore confidence in institutions. What people expect from him is that he regains control of his party, that he leads his policy toward the center of the political spectrum and that he dedicates himself to solving the major national problems openly with moderates in the opposition party.
Previous article![]( "Did the State of the Union Address Include a Declaration of a Trade War against China?")
