Guest columnist/opinion:
The elephant takes a fall

Brad Legreid is executive director of the Wisconsin Dairy Products Association and is a guest columnist for this week’s Cheese Market News®.

November 7, 2006, proved to be a significant date in American politics. The mid-term elections held that day produced results with far-reaching implications. The voting decisions created a dramatic change in the political landscape for our nation, as well as for the state of Wisconsin.

So, what exactly did happen? For weeks leading up to the elections, there were murmurs and subtle predictions that the Democratic party was poised to make significant gains in the U.S. House of Representatives and possibly the U.S. Senate. The magical numbers for the Dems were 15 seats to take control of the House and six to achieve a majority in the Senate. Most political pundits thought the Dems had a better-that-average chance to win the House, but very few were predicting they could also take the Senate.

As we all know, the last month of political campaigning was ugly and aggressive. Both parties were pulling out all the stops to achieve their goals. Celebrities campaigned for the Democrats and President Bush stumped for the Republicans. Bitter words and scathing political ads were spewed out by the candidates in an effort to gain a political advantage.

Then, Nov. 7 arrived. What a wild night of election returns! Early in the evening, it became apparent that the Dems were going to win the House of Representatives. However, their victory in the House was not a squeaker, but rather it looked more like a landslide. After having fewer seats in the House than at any time since Herbert Hoover was president, the Dems steamrolled their way into the House majority. Even though they only needed to pick up 15 seats, they gained control of 29 seats (at press time there are still a couple House seats which are undecided). Presently, the Dems hold 230 seats in the House and the GOP has 196, with 9 races still undecided (7 of the 9 races have Republicans in the lead). So, after being out of power for the past 12 years, the Dems will recapture the House leadership.

On the Senate side, suspense and excitement characterized the election results. As stated previously, the Dems needed six votes to control the Senate; a Herculean task in the minds of most people. Even Democratic Party gadfly James Carville was extremely hesitant on election night television commentary to let himself muse over the possibility of the Dems winning both congressional houses. During the evening, it quickly became apparent that the main battlegrounds for Senate control came down to the states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri, Rhode Island, Virginia and Montana.

As election night wore on, the Dems started a slow march toward achieving their Senate goals. Early in the evening, they captured Ohio, Rhode Island and Pennsylvania. Then the tight race in Missouri, which featured a passionate debate on stem cell research, slowly, but surely, started leaning toward the Democrats. Even though they now had four of the six needed Senate seats, no Democrat that night was predicting control of the Senate. Americans went to bed on election night not knowing the results in Virginia or Montana, thus unaware of which party would have the majority. The next day, counting and canvassing continued in both states. By the middle of Wednesday, Montana had fallen to the Dems, which also had a 7,000 vote lead in the Virginia race. At press time, it strongly appears, barring any significant changes in possible recounts, that the Democratic Party will gain a 51-49 majority in the U.S. Senate.

So, why did this tidal wave of change come about? How did the Democratic Party pull off one of the biggest election turnarounds in U.S. history? How did the GOP manage to lose so many seats? It is generally acknowledged that the voters’ dissatisfactions centered on the progress of the Iraq war, Republican scandals on Capitol Hill, President Bush’s leadership and a perceived lack of agenda by the Republican Party. What’s confusing to me is why the Republican Party did not counteract these negatives with their own arguments on the healthy economy. As the old saying goes, “Americans vote with their pocketbooks.” With the U.S. economy chugging along at a healthy pace — record highs in the Dow Jones, record low unemployment rates, and lower gas prices — the Republicans failed to re-direct the debate toward the strength of the economy and stronger national security (their party’s perceived forte). By controlling the national debate, the Dems were able to focus on the Republican’s Achilles heel, thus capturing the public’s support.

So, what happens now? In two words: political gridlock. With the Dems controlling both congressional houses with slim majorities and President Bush at the White House for two more years, not too many political experts expect much to be accomplished. With that said, one major victory for the Democrats has already occurred with the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld as the secretary of defense. Most Dems loathed Rumsfeld and blamed him for the slow progress in Iraq. Only time will tell if his replacement, Robert Gates, will be approved by the Senate and allowed to take over the war effort. But will there be additional changes with this split in power?

It’s obvious that both parties are very polarized in their viewpoints. The two political parties are quite dichotomous in their beliefs. That’s reflected in how the last couple of elections have gone. Over the last four to six years, most major elections have been extremely close. It appears that the country is evenly divided in its political views. The leadership of both parties and their activists are deeply entrenched, with a dramatic schism separating the two sides. Neither side wishes to compromise, no matter what “nice talk” is being made between the President and the new Democratic leaders. Since President Bush and new House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have a strong disdain for each other, it doesn’t appear likely that their conciliatory words will lead to future partnership and action.

With both political parties sharing an obsessive and myopic vision of the 2008 presidential elections, neither side will be in the mood to work with the other party. Both parties will be jockeying and posturing themselves to score big in two years. And with the Democratic Party now in control of both houses, they will control the political agenda for the next two years. They will assume all the committee chairmanships and decide which legislation is addressed. They will work to put their mark on all major political debates, such as the Iraq war, immigration, Medicare, minimum wages, etc., in an effort to achieve success in 2008.

Therefore, in all likelihood, political gridlock will rule the day. In the minds of many, that’s not all bad. Many citizens and businesses prefer to have a dormant Congress, with less intrusion in their lives. In fact, the day after the elections, when it appeared the Dems had locked up both congressional houses and gridlock was imminent, the Dow Jones industrials closed at a record high as a result of investors welcoming the prospect of gridlock and less intrusion into the business world.

On the local level, the state of Wisconsin did not experience the same groundswell of change that occurred nationally, but it did encounter its own moderate changes.

The governor’s race, which appeared to be a tight contest just days before the election, proved to be an easy victory for Jim Doyle. By winning Tuesday night, Doyle became the first Democratic governor in 32 years to win a second term. His victory was somewhat overshadowed by the attorney general’s race in which Republican J.B. Van Hollen looks to have narrowly defeated Democrat Kathleen Falk. This victory might lead to a case of deja vu. After all, when Doyle was the Wisconsin attorney general and Tommy Thompson was governor, they butted heads and were constant thorns in each other’s sides. Time will tell if Van Hollen and Doyle will assume these antagonistic roles.

One last note on the gubernatorial elections. The Democratic Party was successful in capturing 28 of the governor seats in the United States. One of the few bright spots for the Republican Party was when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger retained the governorship of California, a predominately left-leaning state. In an ebullient mood, Schwarzenegger’s movie background was evident when he claimed victory by stating that he “loves to do sequels.”

Back in Wisconsin, not only did the Dems keep the governor’s office, they also garnered the majority of seats in the state Senate. Prior to the election, the GOP had 19 seats to the Dems’ 14. After the elections, the Dems had an 18-15 majority. Judy Robson is poised to take over as the new Senate majority leader. In the Assembly, the Republicans managed to retain control, but by a slimmer margin. Before Nov. 7, the GOP had a 58-39 majority. Now, the difference has been whittled down to 52-46 (with one seat still undecided). So, with the two legislative houses divided and a different party controlling both the governor’s and attorney general’s offices, the same political gridlock that will likely appear on the national scene should be quite prevalent on the local scene as well.

This doesn’t bode well for the state of Wisconsin. That’s because the state faces another massive budget deficit of at least $1 billion in the next biennial budget. It was difficult enough to pass the last budget two years ago when the GOP controlled both houses and were united in their support of the budget. Now, with the two houses divided, this will only exacerbate the partisan fighting between the two parties. The Dems, knowing full well that they have the governor’s mighty veto pen on their side, will be forceful in pushing their budget proposals. The Republicans, who will now have less leverage, will have to fight a vigorous battle and hope to achieve some of their budget goals. All in all, next year’s biennial budget battle, as well as all legislative activities over the next two years, should shower a storm of political rhetoric and antagonistic finger pointing down onto the state of Wisconsin.

The final conclusion from these elections can be viewed from two different perspectives. For national Democrats, they can revel in joy and celebration. They pulled off a coup of seismic proportions. They can now attempt to steer the country in their political direction over the next two years. For the GOP, all is not lost. Sure, many Republicans will be dealing with despair and frustration over these elections, but there is a silver lining. That’s because anything negative that happens over the next two years also now will bear the Democrats’ fingerprints. If the Republicans had maintained control of Congress, they would have received 100 percent of the blame for any problems in Iraq or with the U.S. economy. That would lead to an even greater voter backlash in 2008, which would have devastating ramifications for the Republican Party. However, now that the Dems control Congress, they will inherit some of the blame for any negative occurrences before 2008. That, in turn, will help the Republicans as they try to retain the presidency and recapture Congress.

No matter what, with political gridlock, hyped rhetoric and divisive issues confronting both parties, the next two years should be exciting. To paraphrase a famous line by Mae West, “Hold onto your hats, it’s going to be quite a bumpy ride.”

CMN

The views expressed by CMN’s guest columnists are their own opinions and do not necessarily reflect those of Cheese Market News®.