The Elections Were a Referendum on Voters’ Trust in Obama
Published in Nezavisimaya
(Russia) on 3 November 2010
by Andrei Terekhov (link to original)
The United States is undergoing a historic moment. The current Congress has only a month and a half left. In January 2011, the new composition of legislators that were chosen during yesterday's elections will begin their duties. The voting results shed light on the future politics of the White House. Experts suggest that Barack Obama will have to learn to listen to the Republicans in both domestic and foreign policy spheres. Otherwise, the president's opponents will cut his initiatives at the root. Among these initiatives, there might be a contract, which is important for Russia.
American voters yesterday determined who would take 435 seats in the House of Representatives. Also at stake were one third of the seats in the Senate and 24 gubernatorial posts, including the states crucial to the outcome of the upcoming 2012 presidential elections. Polls did not favor the ruling Democratic Party, which currently controls both Congress and the White House.
The main issues of the current elections, unlike several previous campaigns, were not related to Iraq and Afghanistan, or international terrorism, but to domestic policy. The actions of the Democrats had been too ambiguous. The adoption of health care reform and public support for banks, attempts to increase the tax burden on the upper middle class — all this was perceived by many as the socialization of the country, a departure from the traditional American enterprise, which had moved the United States forward until now. The weakness of economic recovery and high levels of unemployment seem to indicate the flaws in Obama's economic policies. Therefore, the midterm elections are often called a referendum on the presidency. One way or another, the winners of yesterday's gubernatorial races in Colorado, Florida, New Mexico and Ohio could materially affect the chances of Obama's re-election two years later. Recent polls have predicted the wins of the Democratic candidates in Colorado and Ohio. Voters in New Mexico, favored a Republican; in Florida, however, there was a tenacious quarrel.
Yet, these elections cannot be deprived of foreign policy implications. “Big government,” which the White House used to push their political projects through the majorities in the Senate and the House of Representatives, is now of the past. Congress will now have more Republican appointees, and among them are the initiators of Sarah Palin’s tea party political movement, with whom the Democrats will have a tough time negotiating.
For Russia, it is important first of all, [to see] what will change in the Senate — the Senate in particular has the authority to ratify international treaties of the United States. “For now, the prospects for ratification of the START treaty are quite bad,” said professor Alexei Bogaturov, MGIMO Rector, in an interview with Nezavisimaya Gazeta. According to him, among the priorities of the Obama administration, despite the talk of rebooting, the issue of ratifying the treaty on reducing strategic offensive weapons has never occupied and does not occupy the first place. “Now, even for technical reasons, it would be extremely difficult for Democrats to fix the situation,” the expert continued. The old team in Congress will meet at the end of the week. By law, the Congress has the right to make decisions on international treaties. The new Congress will take office in January of next year. But due to the Christmas holidays, the old Congress will meet for only five or six more times. Bogaturov considers the ratification of the START treaty unlikely at this time. We should note that a number of American specialists, including current and former administration officials, had previously stated that the document would still be approved.
In the newly elected Congress, forecasts are also mixed regarding the case of transfer of power to the Republicans. It has been suggested that the Republicans will refuse to ratify the START treaty. The probability of such a scenario might rise if Obama does not try to show more flexibility with regard to his political opponents. In turn, if he could reduce the degree of political polarization, we may hope that Congress has a group of sane Republicans who, along with Democrats, will support the document.
American voters yesterday determined who would take 435 seats in the House of Representatives. Also at stake were one third of the seats in the Senate and 24 gubernatorial posts, including the states crucial to the outcome of the upcoming 2012 presidential elections. Polls did not favor the ruling Democratic Party, which currently controls both Congress and the White House.
The main issues of the current elections, unlike several previous campaigns, were not related to Iraq and Afghanistan, or international terrorism, but to domestic policy. The actions of the Democrats had been too ambiguous. The adoption of health care reform and public support for banks, attempts to increase the tax burden on the upper middle class — all this was perceived by many as the socialization of the country, a departure from the traditional American enterprise, which had moved the United States forward until now. The weakness of economic recovery and high levels of unemployment seem to indicate the flaws in Obama's economic policies. Therefore, the midterm elections are often called a referendum on the presidency. One way or another, the winners of yesterday's gubernatorial races in Colorado, Florida, New Mexico and Ohio could materially affect the chances of Obama's re-election two years later. Recent polls have predicted the wins of the Democratic candidates in Colorado and Ohio. Voters in New Mexico, favored a Republican; in Florida, however, there was a tenacious quarrel.
Yet, these elections cannot be deprived of foreign policy implications. “Big government,” which the White House used to push their political projects through the majorities in the Senate and the House of Representatives, is now of the past. Congress will now have more Republican appointees, and among them are the initiators of Sarah Palin’s tea party political movement, with whom the Democrats will have a tough time negotiating.
For Russia, it is important first of all, [to see] what will change in the Senate — the Senate in particular has the authority to ratify international treaties of the United States. “For now, the prospects for ratification of the START treaty are quite bad,” said professor Alexei Bogaturov, MGIMO Rector, in an interview with Nezavisimaya Gazeta. According to him, among the priorities of the Obama administration, despite the talk of rebooting, the issue of ratifying the treaty on reducing strategic offensive weapons has never occupied and does not occupy the first place. “Now, even for technical reasons, it would be extremely difficult for Democrats to fix the situation,” the expert continued. The old team in Congress will meet at the end of the week. By law, the Congress has the right to make decisions on international treaties. The new Congress will take office in January of next year. But due to the Christmas holidays, the old Congress will meet for only five or six more times. Bogaturov considers the ratification of the START treaty unlikely at this time. We should note that a number of American specialists, including current and former administration officials, had previously stated that the document would still be approved.
In the newly elected Congress, forecasts are also mixed regarding the case of transfer of power to the Republicans. It has been suggested that the Republicans will refuse to ratify the START treaty. The probability of such a scenario might rise if Obama does not try to show more flexibility with regard to his political opponents. In turn, if he could reduce the degree of political polarization, we may hope that Congress has a group of sane Republicans who, along with Democrats, will support the document.