Thomas Nixon Carver once said, "The trouble with radicals is that they only read radical literature, and the trouble with conservatives is that they don't read anything." The political tug-of-war between Democrats and Republicans leading up to the midterm elections this November seem almost comically designed to bear out Carver's point.
Take, for example, President Obama's current mantra regarding the economy and why Republicans shouldn't be trusted with running it. The argument usually manifests itself by way of a metaphor: Obama repeatedly says that Republicans drove the car (the economy) into a ditch (the recession), and now they want the keys (control of Congress) back. The argument that Republicans actually caused the economy to crash is in itself fairly shallow.
The economy tanked largely because housing prices had reached astronomical levels, and when the bubble crashed, millions of Americans—many of whom couldn't afford their homes to begin with—had no choice but to default on their mortgages. The implications were magnified when these high-risk mortgages were bundled into complex securities packages whose value cratered once banks started foreclosing. This in turn initiated a widespread credit crunch.
Republicans argue that it was Clinton-era policies that first encouraged banks and government mortgage lenders like Fannie Mae to start issuing mortgages to people who couldn't afford them. Democrats counter that the securities packages designed by Wall Street made the recession much worse than it needed to be and were made possible by Republican deregulation efforts. Both arguments have elements of truth to them. However, to try and place blame for the recession at the feet of Republicans solely, as Obama has done, is irresponsible and hardly emblematic of the post-partisan politics Obama claims he believes in.
Both parties could have done more to prevent the recession, but they didn't. That Obama has turned a blind eye to this reality is worrying enough, yet what makes it particularly egregious is that he continues to express a sort of bafflement as to why voters are frustrated with his administration. The president coolly explained at a recent press conference that he understood voters were upset the economy wasn't doing better, but it was his administration that prevented the economy from getting worse. Reasonable enough.
What Obama really doesn't seem to appreciate, however, is that voters are upset not just because the economy is doing poorly. They are upset because after being told to foot the bill for massive "stimulus" spending and government bailouts, the unemployment rate is still over 9.5 percent and the economy shows little sign of improving. Obama labeled this summer as the "recovery summer" and promised voters that their sacrifices would pay off. So far, two years into his term, they haven't. Yes, economic recovery will take time, but that's not how Obama packaged it. Voters will hold both him and his party accountable this November because they failed to deliver. Obama's apparent unwillingness to appreciate this reality demonstrates a dangerous inability to examine matters of public policy in a nonpartisan manner.
For their part, Republicans have shown a rather impressive commitment to proving themselves just as unhinged as Obama this election cycle. In primary after primary, Republicans are nominating candidates who would look more at home in a room with padded walls than Congress. This reality is disappointing for many of the Republicans who continue to stand for, and believe in, the principals of the free market, small government and American ingenuity. Many Republicans still believe in a party whose principals have been informed by statesman like James Madison and Henry Clay, economists such as Friedrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman, and great political minds like Bill Buckley and Barry Goldwater.
Today, though, a loosely assembled faction of conservative populists calling themselves the Tea Party has taken the Republican Party hostage. Time and again they show up at Republican primaries and defeat candidates with sound, sensible policy positions that would help lead the country out of its current economic position.
In their place, the Tea Party nominates candidates like Sharon Angle (who doesn't believe global warming exists and says that Americans are buying ammunition to prepare for an upcoming revolution) and Rand Paul (who believes the Fourteenth Amendment should be repealed and opposes all gun-control legislation). The most recent example, Christine O'Donnell, galvanized support by insinuating that her opponent was having a gay affair and using "unmanly" campaign tactics, saying on a radio show that "this is not a bake-off and [her opponent] needs to put his man-pants on."
These are the type of people who would represent the Republican Party and the American people in Congress if the Tea Party has its way. The implications of such an outcome would be devastating, yet such candidates continue to succeed largely because a faction of Republicans have become immovable in their commitment to populist rhetoric, supporting any candidate who tells them what they want to hear. Such people may win primaries, but they rarely make for great leaders.
Political leaders don't need to be superhuman to do their jobs. Americans don't actually expect that. What Americans do expect is that the men and women they elect to represent them have integrity and a commitment to finding the best, and sometimes bipartisan, solutions to the nation's problems. That isn't too much to ask.