Chris Adamo
2010 elections: where to go from here
By Chris Adamo
The sheer enormity of the 2010 mid-term elections has caused disfavored political players to scramble and posture. Some who only a few years ago had believed their agenda to be the wave of the future now find themselves relegated to the political fringe, while a resurgence of traditional Americanism is proving to be the force that defines and dominates the political landscape.
Of course those who suffered voter rejection last week are not going to simply accept their defeat and go home. Politicians in general are hardly prone to such a course. But for the leftists whom the voters soundly rebuffed in this year's elections, doing so is simply not an option. Every effort, no matter how transparent, to spin, distort, or otherwise rewrite this year's events will be the necessary price of retaining power, or at least claiming to do so.
Fortunately for them, the election results exhibit sufficient ambiguity to be exploited, albeit with significant effort, as "proof" of the virtues and worthiness of the liberal/socialist agenda. So America must be ready to see Marxism repackaged slightly, and then heaved upon them once again, unless the realities of the 2010 elections can be properly interpreted and explained, and the right course charted to 2012.
Without question, the most striking event was the Republican landslide in the House of Representatives. With a net gain of sixty-three seats, Republicans have received an undeniable mandate from the American people. But exactly what is the nature of that mandate? While a "safe" and shortsighted version might focus strictly on fiscal responsibility, this is only a single piece of the answer.
Indeed the "Tea Party" movement of 2009 and 2010 was fueled in large part by citizen outrage over the abominable spending excesses of the Federal Government. Just as vehemently however, this grassroots uprising was in reaction to the wholly unconstitutional realms into which the government had inserted itself. From "healthcare" to environmental alarmism to the takeover of private industries, to the imposition of morally bankrupt edicts through judicial activism, the current Administration and its like-minded statists in the Congress and the courts have grossly abused the limited and defined powers entrusted to them by the consent of the people.
Clearly, the stark power shift in the Congress reflected an initial effort by the American people to re-establish proper limitations on governmental authority, and to repeal, defund, or otherwise countermand every extra-constitutional attempt to grow it beyond those limits. As the nation's primary representative body, it is understandable the Congress would be the epicenter of this movement, and the stunning turnover of seats from liberal Democrats to "Tea Party" Republicans bears witness to the fervency of these sentiments.
Unfortunately, Senate races were perceived and conducted differently, and the significantly less striking results in that body bear sad but sobering witness to the problems that must be confronted there. Unlike the House, the Senate largely succeeded in retaining its air of superiority as an elitist "fraternity." Concerted grassroots efforts to shake-up the Senate were successfully thwarted, particularly by establishment Republicans whose main goal was not the restoration of the country, but the preservation of their exclusive society. Senate candidates whose election promised the infiltration of common sensical thinking into its hallowed halls were systematically undercut by Republican treachery. Though they might be suitable as Representatives in the Congress, they were typecast as substandard for the Senate. Unfortunately, the public proved susceptible to this tactic.
While Nevada Republican candidate Sharron Angle may well have fallen victim to rampant vote-fraud and fetid Democrat machine politics, she was also betrayed by prominent Nevada "Republicans" who publicly endorsed Harry Reid. "Party Unity" and other platitudes only apply when Republican "moderates" (read: liberals) are attempting to co-opt conservatives into supporting them.
Not surprisingly, the GOP "insiders" have been crowing incessantly ever since the results were reported over the decisive loss of Delaware Republican candidate Christine O'Donnell to leftist Democrat Chris Coons. The polls had hardly closed before former Bush strategist Karl Rove was putting forth his self-adulatory "I told you so" statements regarding his assessment of O'Donnell as "unelectable." Ditto for fellow insider Charles Krauthammer, who like Rove never missed an opportunity to deride and undermine O'Donnell's candidacy. So their "credibility" remains intact, even if the country suffers from the result.
In truth however, neither O'Donnell nor her supporters need bear any shame over her effort. Despite the fact that all of the "experts" were convinced that, had her liberal Republican opponent Mike Castle won in the primary, he would have easily sailed through to a general election victory, the story hardly ends there. Outside of the Beltway, the situation bears a more cogent analysis. Would conservative prospects in the Senate have really fared better with forty-seven Republicans, one of whom being the RINO Mike Castle? Or are they actually stronger with the current forty-six who know that they are expected to remain loyal to conservative principle or face a primary opponent like O'Donnell in their next election?
Without being naively optimistic, a certain distinct benefit does redound from the less than ideal Tuesday election results. In 1994, a conglomeration of conditions, including the Christian Coalition, the ascendancy of Rush Limbaugh, and public backlash against Hillarycare combined to bring about the Republican landslide in both houses. Unfortunately, those who ultimately achieved that year's resounding success subsequently laid it at the feet of the Republican Party, which then proceeded to dissemble and squander it.
In stark contrast, the tidal wave of the 2010-midterm elections resulted overwhelmingly from the heartfelt sentiments of the "Tea Party" movement. These grassroots patriots are not about to repeat the mistakes of the past, and are acutely aware that much work needs to be done to keep this Herculean effort moving forward. Any benefits enjoyed by the GOP establishment are given on a conditional and possibly temporary basis. Platitudes and rhetoric, in lieu of actual results, are not acceptable. 2012 can be another resounding victory for the constitutionalists of the Tea Party and the GOP, but only if the latter mends its ways, finds its spine, and returns decidedly to its conservative roots.
© Chris Adamo
November 11, 2010
The sheer enormity of the 2010 mid-term elections has caused disfavored political players to scramble and posture. Some who only a few years ago had believed their agenda to be the wave of the future now find themselves relegated to the political fringe, while a resurgence of traditional Americanism is proving to be the force that defines and dominates the political landscape.
Of course those who suffered voter rejection last week are not going to simply accept their defeat and go home. Politicians in general are hardly prone to such a course. But for the leftists whom the voters soundly rebuffed in this year's elections, doing so is simply not an option. Every effort, no matter how transparent, to spin, distort, or otherwise rewrite this year's events will be the necessary price of retaining power, or at least claiming to do so.
Fortunately for them, the election results exhibit sufficient ambiguity to be exploited, albeit with significant effort, as "proof" of the virtues and worthiness of the liberal/socialist agenda. So America must be ready to see Marxism repackaged slightly, and then heaved upon them once again, unless the realities of the 2010 elections can be properly interpreted and explained, and the right course charted to 2012.
Without question, the most striking event was the Republican landslide in the House of Representatives. With a net gain of sixty-three seats, Republicans have received an undeniable mandate from the American people. But exactly what is the nature of that mandate? While a "safe" and shortsighted version might focus strictly on fiscal responsibility, this is only a single piece of the answer.
Indeed the "Tea Party" movement of 2009 and 2010 was fueled in large part by citizen outrage over the abominable spending excesses of the Federal Government. Just as vehemently however, this grassroots uprising was in reaction to the wholly unconstitutional realms into which the government had inserted itself. From "healthcare" to environmental alarmism to the takeover of private industries, to the imposition of morally bankrupt edicts through judicial activism, the current Administration and its like-minded statists in the Congress and the courts have grossly abused the limited and defined powers entrusted to them by the consent of the people.
Clearly, the stark power shift in the Congress reflected an initial effort by the American people to re-establish proper limitations on governmental authority, and to repeal, defund, or otherwise countermand every extra-constitutional attempt to grow it beyond those limits. As the nation's primary representative body, it is understandable the Congress would be the epicenter of this movement, and the stunning turnover of seats from liberal Democrats to "Tea Party" Republicans bears witness to the fervency of these sentiments.
Unfortunately, Senate races were perceived and conducted differently, and the significantly less striking results in that body bear sad but sobering witness to the problems that must be confronted there. Unlike the House, the Senate largely succeeded in retaining its air of superiority as an elitist "fraternity." Concerted grassroots efforts to shake-up the Senate were successfully thwarted, particularly by establishment Republicans whose main goal was not the restoration of the country, but the preservation of their exclusive society. Senate candidates whose election promised the infiltration of common sensical thinking into its hallowed halls were systematically undercut by Republican treachery. Though they might be suitable as Representatives in the Congress, they were typecast as substandard for the Senate. Unfortunately, the public proved susceptible to this tactic.
While Nevada Republican candidate Sharron Angle may well have fallen victim to rampant vote-fraud and fetid Democrat machine politics, she was also betrayed by prominent Nevada "Republicans" who publicly endorsed Harry Reid. "Party Unity" and other platitudes only apply when Republican "moderates" (read: liberals) are attempting to co-opt conservatives into supporting them.
Not surprisingly, the GOP "insiders" have been crowing incessantly ever since the results were reported over the decisive loss of Delaware Republican candidate Christine O'Donnell to leftist Democrat Chris Coons. The polls had hardly closed before former Bush strategist Karl Rove was putting forth his self-adulatory "I told you so" statements regarding his assessment of O'Donnell as "unelectable." Ditto for fellow insider Charles Krauthammer, who like Rove never missed an opportunity to deride and undermine O'Donnell's candidacy. So their "credibility" remains intact, even if the country suffers from the result.
In truth however, neither O'Donnell nor her supporters need bear any shame over her effort. Despite the fact that all of the "experts" were convinced that, had her liberal Republican opponent Mike Castle won in the primary, he would have easily sailed through to a general election victory, the story hardly ends there. Outside of the Beltway, the situation bears a more cogent analysis. Would conservative prospects in the Senate have really fared better with forty-seven Republicans, one of whom being the RINO Mike Castle? Or are they actually stronger with the current forty-six who know that they are expected to remain loyal to conservative principle or face a primary opponent like O'Donnell in their next election?
Without being naively optimistic, a certain distinct benefit does redound from the less than ideal Tuesday election results. In 1994, a conglomeration of conditions, including the Christian Coalition, the ascendancy of Rush Limbaugh, and public backlash against Hillarycare combined to bring about the Republican landslide in both houses. Unfortunately, those who ultimately achieved that year's resounding success subsequently laid it at the feet of the Republican Party, which then proceeded to dissemble and squander it.
In stark contrast, the tidal wave of the 2010-midterm elections resulted overwhelmingly from the heartfelt sentiments of the "Tea Party" movement. These grassroots patriots are not about to repeat the mistakes of the past, and are acutely aware that much work needs to be done to keep this Herculean effort moving forward. Any benefits enjoyed by the GOP establishment are given on a conditional and possibly temporary basis. Platitudes and rhetoric, in lieu of actual results, are not acceptable. 2012 can be another resounding victory for the constitutionalists of the Tea Party and the GOP, but only if the latter mends its ways, finds its spine, and returns decidedly to its conservative roots.
© Chris Adamo
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
