Who Won Tuesday?

Political commentators– whether they are conservative or liberal; thoughtful or angry; intellectually honest or hopelessly partisan; penetratingly insightful or galactically stupid – and whether or not they ply their trade in television, print, or radio - have one thing in common. They analyze election results in terms of which political party won the day.

The read on Tuesday, generally, was that Republicans won the day. Gubernatorial victories in New Jersey and Virginia, two states that voted decisively for Barack Obama in 2008, gave the GOP reason to celebrate. Democrats took what cheer they could from a Democratic victory in New York’s 23rd Congressional district, in which one of their own defeated a Conservative party candidate that was endorsed and supported by such GOP heavyweights as Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin.

But the real winners on Tuesday were the largest and quietest group of American voters. There will be no victory parties, no spinning to the press, no acceptance speeches and no oaths of office – but the winners on Tuesday were your friendly neighborhood moderates.

The Misunderstood Moderate
There are several problems with the way moderates are characterized by the political press.

First, we are not the same as Independents. Many moderates belong to political parties, but represent the more moderate wing of that party. Most Northeast Republicans, for example, are moderates, as are many Southeast Democrats.

Second, we do not hold moderate views on every subject. We tend to be moderate on some subjects such as abortion and interrogation techniques for suspected terrorists. But we can often be well to the left or the right of the major parties on other issues. For example, many Northeast Republicans favor gun control, while most Democrats with national ambitions make sure to get their picture taken shooting ducks.

And third, we care about politics. The independent voter, especially those that only vote during Presidential election years, tend to be apathetic about politics, and their votes tend to be more personality-driven than issue-driven. But the true moderate cares deeply about politics, is highly informed, and votes in off years…he just doesn’t vote for the same party all the time. National and local issues and even broader strategic goals play a part in which lever gets pulled.

Moderates Win! Moderates Win! The-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e Moderates Win!
I won’t go into detail on what happened Tuesday – there is plenty of good analysis in the mainstream media for that. But the bottom line – GOP victories in blue states and the hard right getting a bloody nose in upstate New York – were both good things for moderates, both cautionary tales to the partisan leaders of both parties that the center will hold. To Pelosi and Rush, we say a pox on both your houses.

Now if we can just do something about gerrymandering…

In Defense of Divisiveness

A big theme in this year’s election is unity. John McCain, the Republican most beloved by Democrats, and the soothing Democrat Barack Obama, both promise to end the political divisiveness that has plagued our national politics through the Clinton and Bush Administrations.

There is a lot of debate about whether or not they can succeed. But does anyone stop to wonder if, perhaps, unity is such a good thing?

Put differently: has anyone noticed that the list of America’s most successful Presidents is remarkably similar to the list of America’s most divisive Presidents?

The list starts with Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln is widely considered to be America’s greatest President…but he’s got the Divisiveness Crown well in hand, too. Lincoln was elected President on November 6, 1860. He was inaugurated on March 4, 1861. In the 4-month interim between election and inauguration, 7 states seceded from the Union. They were so appalled at the idea of a Lincoln Presidency, they chose to leave the Union and start their own nation. Four more would follow.

Obviously, the divisiveness was more tragic than that. The Civil War ensued from the secession, and 600,000 American lives were lost. That, my friends, is divisiveness of the highest order.

While no other example is that stark, most great Presidents have not had the admiration of their political opponents:

FDR
Franklin Delano Roosevelt led a unified country through the Second World War, but his New Deal policies were fiercely contested by his political opponents through the Depression. As FDR began losing those battles in his 2nd term he unveiled his “court packing” plan – the idea was to simply add 5 new Supreme Court justices.

Republicans and conservative Democrats were disgusted at this power grab, and the Democrats were slaughtered in the mid-term elections of 1938.

Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson was one of the first master practitioners - and victims - of nasty, partisan politics in American history. We know now the Sally Hemings story is true, but that doesn’t change the fact that his enemies hated him so much that they’d print it.

But TJ was no shrinking violet himself – he even secretly financed a newspaper to attack his opponents. The Federalist-Republican feud in the early 1800’s was a vicious back-alley fight that makes today's feuds seem like high tea at Harrods.

Jackson
Andrew Jackson was more despised by his political opponents than even Bush or Clinton could claim. He was even called a murderer – one campaign bill featured a picture of 6 coffins representing men Jackson had executed in court-martials or killed in duels. The attacks on him were so severe he blamed them for his wife’s sickness and death.


Coincidence?

What does all this mean? Is it merely a coincidence that great Presidents inspire the deepest hatred among their political opponents?

Of course not. Greatness only comes to the bold, to those who have and act upon strongly held convictions. Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, and Roosevelt were all powerful and effective leaders who had a very strong vision for the United States. They were attacked by those who disagreed. The South, for example, realized that Lincoln's positions on slavery were dramatically different than the wishy-washy compromisers who preceded him.

You want unity? Try Warren Harding on for size. Harding ran on a “let’s all get along” platform. His most famous speech came while running for President, in which he argued for normalcy:

"America's present need is not heroics, but healing; not nostrums, but normalcy; not revolution, but restoration; not agitation, but adjustment; not surgery, but serenity; not the dramatic, but the dispassionate; not experiment, but equipoise; not submergence in internationality, but sustainment in triumphant nationality...."

Yawn... But seriously, if you heard Barack Obama give this speech, would you be surprised? (Well, maybe at the use of the words nostrums and equipoise.) Would you nod your head along in agreement?

Harding was immensely popular while in office, but today, historians rank him among our least effective Presidents.

So, the next time you hear one of the candidates tell you that they are going to unify the country, stop to ask yourself if that is all it’s cracked up to be.


Sidebar: McCain may be the Democrat's favorite Republican, but he's the conservative Republican's least favorite Republican. Rush Limbaugh, whom you would assume is dedicating every waking moment to fighting the Clinton Restoration, in fact spends most of his time attacking John McCain. In this respect, McCain is similar to FDR, who sometimes inspired more vitriol from conservative Democrats than from Republicans.