EDITOR?S NOTE: As part of our coverage of the midterm elections, the Orient asked professors in the government department to respond to the results of the elections. The Orient asked the professors, "What impact will the results of the national election have on the United States?" Michael Franz an expert in American government, shares his thoughts here. Click here to see Jean Yarbrough's reaction.
American elections are often boring and easy to forecast. Ninety-five percent of incumbents win re-election, and public opinion polls do an excellent job of predicting winners. At the same time, however, we live in an age of polarized partisan politics, where "blue staters" and "red staters" battle over cultural, economic, and international issues. In an era where 500 voters in Florida can determine the outcome of a presidential election, and where a few thousand voters in Virginia and Montana can determine agenda control in the Senate, American elections count for a lot?not to mention providing good theater. This year, John Kerry's gaffe, Ted Haggard's confession, and the verdict in the Saddam Hussein trial were the final acts in an election season dominated by the war in Iraq, rising budget deficits, and corruption scandals.
All told, Tuesday's midterms took the pulse of the American electorate, and the results were striking?a roughly 30-seat gain in the House, and Senate upsets in seven states (assuming Virginia goes to the Democrats). The election was also historic, as the Democrats will make Nancy Pelosi the first female speaker of the House. But we should be cautious in assuming that the Democrats' gains represent a mandate for the Democratic agenda. (Which is what, by the way? Can we list anything other than a hike in the minimum wage, and "change" in the conduct of the war?) More accurately, Democrats rode a wave of discontent with the war in Iraq, making the election a referendum on Bush. To that effect, Democrats benefited by not being Republicans?hardly a mandate.
Democrats face an uphill battle. Will they put aside their anger over the war in Iraq and offer policy solutions? Or will they do what activists want?start impeachment proceedings against Bush? How will they handle Bush's judicial nominees, or even a Supreme Court nominee? With Rumsfeld's resignation, how will Senate Democrats approach hearings on his replacement (what if Cheney resigns too)? Will personality conflicts between Democrats stifle policy ideas? Of course, such questions over performance plague any new majority, but with a wide-open race for the White House in 2008, these issues will only be amplified.
We'll hear a lot this week about bipartisanship and working across the aisle. Democrats will say this because they want to appear gracious; Republicans will say this because it's their best talking point against across-the-board losses. But the chummy rhetoric will not last. By the time Nancy Pelosi takes the gavel from Dennis Hastert in January, politics in Washington will become even more contentious, divided, and bitter. For those who think a lot will change because of Democratic victories, there will be plenty of changes. But will the war in Iraq end? Will the deficit go down? Will politicians sincerely reach across the aisle to solve problems, such as health care concerns and the future of social security? Likely not, on all accounts. But it will be a lot of fun to watch.
Franz is an assistant professor in the government department. This semester, he is teaching Introduction to American Government and Campaigns and Elections. Franz is currently doing research on the impact of exposure to campaign ads on voter attitudes, campaign interest, and vote choice. He is also a research associate with the Wisconsin Advertising Project, a research collaboration that tracks political advertisements in the top 100 media markets.