This Time America Has Voted for Someone Who Promises Only a Little Change
Published in Maariv
(Israel) on 4 November 2010
by Shmuel Rosner (link to original)
Two years ago the American voters fell under the spell of Barack Obama; this time they voted for someone who promised them less revolution, less change and less administration.
In Chicago, Ill., the man sitting in Barack Obama’s chair is a short white guy. It’s difficult to recognize a special charisma in him, or outstanding expression ability. He doesn’t have sparkle* and he is not named Hussein. He’s not presidential material. He is just someone named Mark Kirk. And he is the new senator-elect of the state of Illinois. After a tight race, after an unstable night, he wiped away the sweat from his forehead and showed up for the traditional victory speech. Last week, I met Kirk in the offices of Navistar in one of Chicago’s suburbs.
Navistar is a big company which produces, among other things, Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles — which serve the American army on its missions in Afghanistan. Kirk came to meet the workers to lay out before them his doctrine.
On arranged, sparkling clean seats, there sat the office mice wearing ties, who run the company, and in front of them, there was Kirk standing and skimming the program he’s going to propose in order to help small businesses. He had saluted them for the success of their products on the battlefield but warned that the new Republican Congress would be forced to cut the expenses, including for defense.
Kirk is one of the most loyal supporters of Israel in Congress. He has visited here, he has acquaintances here, and on Capitol Hill one can always find him at the top of the list of advocates for any law or letter supporting Israel.
“Making Israel weak or distant from us isn’t realism,” he told the Chicago Tribune last week, such a policy is “dangerous delusion”. Several months ago, he wrote to Obama: “We urge your administration to refrain from further public criticism of Israel.” He was among the headstrong proponents of exacerbating sanctions against Iran as well.
The Americans’ lack of confidence in their government
He was a moderate congressman. A hawk on security and foreign policy matters but a centrist on domestic and social issues. “I’m going to serve the voters from the center,”** he told Navistar managers. He added that he’s hoping Obama will behave after the elections, as Clinton did after the burning defeat in the midterm elections of 1994, when the Democrats also lost the House of Representatives two years after Clinton rose to power. Clinton broke to the right and to the center, managing to get elected again in 1996.
The voters went with Kirk thanks to the promise to cut government expenses, to put brakes on Obama’s reforms and to restrain Washington’s craving for involvement. This is the central promise the Republicans will seek to put into effect. It is convenient for them because it’s common to both moderate Republicans like Kirk and to Republicans spitting out fire from the school of Sarah Palin and the tea party movement.
It’s convenient for them because it reflects the basic lack of confidence the American voters feel towards their government, towards Washington, towards the central establishment trying to engineer their lives for them. It reflects the very familiar demand — to be left alone.
Kirk had been through a tense night on Tuesday, when for long hours he fell behind his Democratic rival. First, the polls of Chicago had been counted, with the Democrat prevailing. Later, when the polls had been counted in the rest of the state, in small cities and towns, the Republicans had the upper hand.
This is a process that repeated itself in another races like this, like the very tight one in Pennsylvania, where all the polls of Philadelphia area had been counted first and gave an advantage to the Democrat Joe Sestak — and only afterward did the polls of the rest of the state’s areas barely tip the scales in favor of the Republican Pat Toomey.
One way or another, America remains divided, factious, between right and left, between red and blue, between city and village. The victory is a product of a higher motivation to vote (this time for the Republicans), of more efficient organization and of little fluctuations, several percent here and there and of independent voters in the center. Two years ago, they were captivated by the magnetizing magic of Obama, by the magic of “the change.” This time, they have voted for someone who promises them less revolution, less change, less administration. From the black they switched to the grey. Senator Mark Kirk.
*Translator’s Note: The Hebrew word used for “sparkle” sounds like (and is spelled) “Barack,” and mainly means “lightning.”
**Editor’s Note: This quote, while translated accurately, could not be verified.
In Chicago, Ill., the man sitting in Barack Obama’s chair is a short white guy. It’s difficult to recognize a special charisma in him, or outstanding expression ability. He doesn’t have sparkle* and he is not named Hussein. He’s not presidential material. He is just someone named Mark Kirk. And he is the new senator-elect of the state of Illinois. After a tight race, after an unstable night, he wiped away the sweat from his forehead and showed up for the traditional victory speech. Last week, I met Kirk in the offices of Navistar in one of Chicago’s suburbs.
Navistar is a big company which produces, among other things, Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles — which serve the American army on its missions in Afghanistan. Kirk came to meet the workers to lay out before them his doctrine.
On arranged, sparkling clean seats, there sat the office mice wearing ties, who run the company, and in front of them, there was Kirk standing and skimming the program he’s going to propose in order to help small businesses. He had saluted them for the success of their products on the battlefield but warned that the new Republican Congress would be forced to cut the expenses, including for defense.
Kirk is one of the most loyal supporters of Israel in Congress. He has visited here, he has acquaintances here, and on Capitol Hill one can always find him at the top of the list of advocates for any law or letter supporting Israel.
“Making Israel weak or distant from us isn’t realism,” he told the Chicago Tribune last week, such a policy is “dangerous delusion”. Several months ago, he wrote to Obama: “We urge your administration to refrain from further public criticism of Israel.” He was among the headstrong proponents of exacerbating sanctions against Iran as well.
The Americans’ lack of confidence in their government
He was a moderate congressman. A hawk on security and foreign policy matters but a centrist on domestic and social issues. “I’m going to serve the voters from the center,”** he told Navistar managers. He added that he’s hoping Obama will behave after the elections, as Clinton did after the burning defeat in the midterm elections of 1994, when the Democrats also lost the House of Representatives two years after Clinton rose to power. Clinton broke to the right and to the center, managing to get elected again in 1996.
The voters went with Kirk thanks to the promise to cut government expenses, to put brakes on Obama’s reforms and to restrain Washington’s craving for involvement. This is the central promise the Republicans will seek to put into effect. It is convenient for them because it’s common to both moderate Republicans like Kirk and to Republicans spitting out fire from the school of Sarah Palin and the tea party movement.
It’s convenient for them because it reflects the basic lack of confidence the American voters feel towards their government, towards Washington, towards the central establishment trying to engineer their lives for them. It reflects the very familiar demand — to be left alone.
Kirk had been through a tense night on Tuesday, when for long hours he fell behind his Democratic rival. First, the polls of Chicago had been counted, with the Democrat prevailing. Later, when the polls had been counted in the rest of the state, in small cities and towns, the Republicans had the upper hand.
This is a process that repeated itself in another races like this, like the very tight one in Pennsylvania, where all the polls of Philadelphia area had been counted first and gave an advantage to the Democrat Joe Sestak — and only afterward did the polls of the rest of the state’s areas barely tip the scales in favor of the Republican Pat Toomey.
One way or another, America remains divided, factious, between right and left, between red and blue, between city and village. The victory is a product of a higher motivation to vote (this time for the Republicans), of more efficient organization and of little fluctuations, several percent here and there and of independent voters in the center. Two years ago, they were captivated by the magnetizing magic of Obama, by the magic of “the change.” This time, they have voted for someone who promises them less revolution, less change, less administration. From the black they switched to the grey. Senator Mark Kirk.
*Translator’s Note: The Hebrew word used for “sparkle” sounds like (and is spelled) “Barack,” and mainly means “lightning.”
**Editor’s Note: This quote, while translated accurately, could not be verified.