For many of us, the outcome of the 2010 election was an anticlimax. Everybody knew that the economy was suffering, that unemployment remains high, that the huge deficit yawns before us—in short, all the gloom and doom that has beset the United States for years now. The polls predicted that Democrats would lose many seats; the media sang that song as if it were at the top of the charts.
So no one was surprised at the results. Maybe some gamblers lost some money trying to predict precise numbers, but the basic message was clear: The people were growing impatient with the economic miseries and wanted change.
The problem with wanting “change” is that the word does not really specify what change will happen. We all remember that President Obama campaigned around the message that he would work to bring change to Washington; whether or not he delivered on that promise is the subject for another discussion.
Now the voting public had spoken in the only manner possible for them, and they expressed their unhappiness with the direction the country was pursuing. The only real choice they had was to make changes in the Congress personnel through an election.
The limitation of this voting option is that the choices of candidates are pretty much limited to candidates from the two major parties, Democratic and Republican. If the polls are an accurate indication of the mood of the public, the voters were not really happy with either party’s platform and had little confidence in the parties’ ability to make the changes that they wanted.
But what does a voter do when neither side inspires confidence? The option of not voting at all is not very responsible. Independent candidates, as well as candidates from the smaller parties, do exist; but without the backing of a major party, the chances of being elected are much slimmer as a rule.
So in worst-case scenarios, a flip of a coin may make the decision. Was this the case in the election? It seems doubtful, but the information gathered indicated that discontent was high and trust in elected officials was low.
Now comes the question: What sort of changes can we expect? The Republican Party has already pledged to repeal the health care law; one Republican stated outright that their goal is to prevent Obama from being re-elected in 2012.
That does not change the fact that Obama is the President and still has the power of veto if the Republicans try to undo the things that the Obama Administration has succeeded in creating in the past two years. Knowing that he has an unfavorable Congress to deal with, Obama may be exercising that veto power much more often than he has to date. If he does, the result will be stagnation.
Will that be the fate of the United States? To remain in limbo because a party is hellbent on ousting the President and undoing everything he has done? Stagnation in government is something the people of the United States can ill afford.
What have we done? Nothing positive, it would seem. The United States needs a functional government to come out of its current quandary, and from the looks of things, that’s something the United States does not have now.
It is folly to expect the parties to modify their platforms. Compromise and cooperation are words that seem to have little meaning, if indeed the elected officials even know the meaning of the words. Bipartisanship seems like a pipe dream at best.
So where will all this end? Sorry, there’s no crystal ball here to help us see what the future may hold. What is clear, however, is that the public is in need of some positive signs that matters of the economy and employment will improve. But will the parties work together on these matters or continue to do battle with one another at the expense of the public? The answer is something that the public deserves to know.
