The Wake

“Vote for change” was the theme Democrats picked to campaign upon in the recent election and the results show that it appealed to voters. Across the nation, Democrats picked up 15 more seats than they needed for a majority in the House of Representatives and won a narrow majority of 51 seats in the Senate when several Democratic candidates upset their Republican opponents.

At a post-election analysis sponsored by the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance , former Congressman Vin Weber and Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak joined professor Lawrence Jacobs to explore “What Happened on Tuesday?” Jacobs called the election a “tropical storm, not a tsunami.” He says that national issues such as the war in Iraq and alignment with some of President Bush’s controversial policies were big factors for voters, but the results also showed the “continuing importance of local issues and personalities.”

The Minnesota governor’s race clearly demonstrated the importance of a candidate’s attitude and image. Incumbent Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who barely defeated Attorney General Mike Hatch, was a very charismatic candidate, probably more so than his opponent, Rybak says. “Personality did play out there,” he acknowledged. But, Jacobs pointed out that “clearly [Independent Peter] Hutchinson had a major impact on this race,” because he drew many otherwise Democratic voters. In many races across the country, other issues outranked personality.

Exit polls done by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International showed that 60 percent of voters surveyed felt that national issues were the most important deciding factors. “It’s important to accurately construe what the voters said,” Weber says. He thought voters prioritized Iraq, corruption in government and associations with Bush.

So what impact will a Democrat-controlled Congress have? California Rep. Nancy Pelosi will be the first female Speaker of the House, for starters. She’s already said she plans for ethical reform, which Weber considers a hopeful sign that may lead to civility and bipartisanship. “The polarization of the last few years was driven by Congress,” he says. So a change in power is a good sign, he says.

And the Congress will have its “power of the purse,” with which it can veto funding for military operations, to set a new direction for the war.

“My guess is that the president will change his approach pretty easily,” Weber says. “This is going to end up being a very bloody confrontation…the war could drive our politics for the next few years.” Weber says that Republicans will possibly shy even further away from Bush now, because they will view the war as what “cost [them their] majority.”

Rybak agreed with Weber that the war was key in the election. “The fine line should not be passivity…there should be rage about what’s going on in Iraq,” he says. “The Democrats that [were] elected are Democrats that will reach across the aisle.”

The question now is whether Congress will take action to withdraw or reduce troops in Iraq. Pelosi, in interviews with CNN, has said that denying the military the funds they request is not a favorable option. She says Democrats wouldn’t want to jeopardize the well-being of the troops, so she favors diplomatic efforts to reduce U.S. involvement in Iraq.

Rybak clearly favors a withdrawal. “People’s kids are dying because this issue was spun,” he declared. “A timetable should now be set.”

Weber was skeptical if a withdrawal could even be pulled off in the remainder of Bush’s term. “This comes to Bush at the end of his presidency,” he says. Bush is not going to look to compromise as much as past presidents, such as former presidents Clinton and Reagan, had to, because they had to deal with an opposing Congress for much of their presidencies, whereas Bush has only two years left, Weber explains.

Weber and Rybak agreed on one other thing: that fiscal issues weren’t on the table as much as they should have been in this election. Weber says that the “biggest disconnect [from voters] was the wave of spending that’s going to put us into a hole fiscally…something has to be done about that large growing problem,”. Whether it’s a tax hike, a reduction in social security benefits or cutbacks to social programs, the public is not going to be happy, he says.

Rybak blames Republicans for the debt, saying “their entitlement spending is out of control.” He says Clinton proved that Democrats could lead the country in a responsible fiscal policy. Fighting a war and giving large tax breaks to the wealthy is not possible without driving up the debt, Rybak asserted, which is why he’s happy to see Democrats back in control. “You can’t say Republican financial strategy in the last few years has been honest. It’s been deeply dishonest.”