Thanks for visiting my blog, Serving Bread. Here you'll read stories, insights, reflections and ramblings from a campus minister, father, husband and Jesus-follower. If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to the RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
The day after elections should be called Spin Day. That’s the day when the losers of the election come out with their version as to why they lost. Winners are usually just revelling in their wins, but losers are trying to explain all the reasons why they didn’t win. And depending on whether your peeps won or lost, you will either participate in the spin or laugh it off.
Here’s one example of spin (I’ve mentioned this in previous posts, so yes, I do have a bone to pick): On the day after Bush beat Kerry in 2004, conservative (and Christian) talk radio host Frank Pastore wrote a column in the LA Times Op-Ed page citing that with Bush’s win, liberalism (and its evils–his words not mine) have been soundly defeated. He went on to explain that the election was more than just Bush versus Kerry, but about two ideological ideas. Whatever. The day after the 2006 mid-term elections, Pastore is singing a different tune. I looked all over the Op-Ed pages wondering, whether he would admit defeat and say that “today liberalism has defeated conservatism” or “today the American people have spoken regarding regime change or the need to change course”. Of course not. Here’s what he wrote on his website:
There’s a big difference between getting beat and losing. You can perform a personal best and still get beat. There is no shame to getting beat. But when you lose, the opposition is irrelevant, you didn’t do what you were supposed to do. You blew it. You lost your head. You fumbled. You threw a wild pitch. With losing, there is properly great shame and embarrassment. As there ought to be. Last night, Republicans lost, they didn’t get beat. But conservatism didn’t get beat, nor did liberalism win a victory. Republicanism lost. And they deserved it.
Dear Mr. Pastore–With one of the most liberal members of congress in Nancy Pelosi slated to be speaker of the house, and when both houses of congress and the governerships are in Democrats’ control, and with the resignation of Rumsfeld (a thorn in the side for many democrats), are not signs of liberalism chalking up a victory, I’m not sure what would be!
-----
If you enjoyed this post, be sure to grab the RSS feed. Also, please take a moment to submit this post through "Share This" above.
-----
|
Related Posts:
|
Interestingly, the Republicans lost fewer seats in this election than the average lost by second term presidents in their sixth year (I think that number is 33), so it’s hard to say at this point what this all means. The American people tend to pendulum swing, so it’s not too surprising that the gains from the last few years have been evened out. Another aspect that makes it difficult to tell what this means (in terms of conservatism vs. liberalism) is the closeness of the races. Even though the Republicans lost so many seats, the races were, for the most part, extremely close. This gives the illusion of a landslide when really, several thousand votes (or less) in the other direction in a few states would have changed control of Congress. Of course, that was also the case in the presidential race–although I’m not sure that it was that close in as many states as this time. It could have been. I tend to think we’re just evenly divided and can go either way at this point, in terms of ideology.
I will say, though, that based on what I’ve been hearing from people on the left this election seems to be more of a reaction against a few people (i.e., Bush’s people and the war) than against conservatism–in other words, I heard much less about policies than I heard simply anti-Bush statements both publicly and privately. (I think that’s probably what Pastore meant by Republicans losing rather than liberalism winning. At least he wasn’t denying Republicans lost.) But this is only something that will become clear in 2008. I guess we’ll have to wait and see!
Hey Amy, Thanks for stopping by. I guess I (EE) was finally found out. You’re right in that when you look closer at the numbers, they tell a different story. Generally speaking, I would say numbers tend to tell two-dimentional stories. You’re also right in saying that the major sentiment of voting in the democrats was dissatisfaction with Bush (and Iraq). (I bet whatever scandals had befallen the Republicans in Delay or Foley, among others, was not as big of a reason for the vote changes).
I’m not suggesting that conservatism was defeated, but I would say that liberals should (rightfully) chalk up a victory in this election–just as the conservatives chalked up a victory in the last couple of elections. Again, it’s all about how you spin the story.
However, it is fair to say that many of the democrats were more on the conservative end of the scale, and some of the republicans who lost were on the liberal end of the scale, so I suppose you can say, that conservatism kinda won. But how the leadership will play down in the house will give a lot more leeway to liberal agendas rather than conservative ones.
Of course, who knows what state legislatures will end up doing…
Good analysis, Amy.
I’ve been wondering since 2000 if there is such a thing as an American consensus. I also wonder if it’s a good, old-fashioned sign of democracy, or if it indicates the nation is adrift…