With a huge win, the GOP challenges Obama

What happened

Amid a stark voter rejection of President Obama and his party, Republicans seized control of the House of Representatives this week, setting the stage for a new era of partisan combat in Washington. Republicans won at least 60 House seats, the largest swing of seats since 1948, and gained at least six seats in the Senate. Democrats, however, held on to their Senate majority. Republicans not only reclaimed House seats they had lost to Democrats in 2006 and 2008, they defeated entrenched lawmakers, including three powerful committee heads—Budget chairman John Spratt of South Carolina, Armed Services chairman Ike Skelton of Missouri, and Transportation chairman Jim Oberstar of Minnesota—with nearly a century of collective experience on Capitol Hill. “We are witnessing a repudiation of Washington, a repudiation of big government, and a repudiation of politicians who refuse to listen to the people,” said House GOP leader John Boehner, who is likely to become the next speaker of the House.

The Republican wave failed to carry several Tea Party–backed candidates into the Senate. In a marquee matchup, Nevada voters re-elected Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid over challenger Sharron Angle. In Connecticut, Democratic Attorney Gen. Richard Blumenthal defeated World Wrestling Federation co-founder Linda McMahon. And in Delaware, Democrat Chris Coons easily defeated Republican Christine O’Donnell, who won national fame after colorful statements (“I am not a witch”) and an endorsement from Sarah Palin. With the outcome of some races pending—including Alaska’s, where a count of write-in ballots could take weeks—Democrats appeared likely to retain at least 52 Senate seats.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

Exit polling revealed an electorate as polarized as the capital. Three-quarters of Democratic voters said the government needed to be more active while eight in 10 Republicans said it should do less. Voters this year were significantly older and more conservative than in 2006 or 2008. Nearly one in four of those who went to the polls was over 65, and six in 10 of them voted Republican. Independents, who voted 57–39 for Democrats in 2006, flipped, voting 55–39 for Republicans on Tuesday. Obama called the election “humbling,” attributed the Democrats’ defeat to the public’s frustration “that we haven’t made enough progress on the economy,” and said he was willing to find “common ground” with Republicans to solve the nation’s problems.

What the editorials said

These results, said The Wall Street Journal, are “about Americans stopping the Pelosi Democrats.” Obamacare, the $812 billion stimulus, and the rest of the Democrats’ “toxic” agenda not only frightened the public but led to a “capital and hiring strike” as businesses stood on the sidelines rather than risk investment while Washington ran amok. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was unrepentant to the end, lauding the Democrats’ overreach as “courageous.” But having seen enough, voters “revoked their liberal license.” Obama loyalists may “blame the economy” for this repudiation, said the New York Daily News. But “he should not subscribe to such easy rationalization.” The public understands that he “inherited a downturn verging on a depression. But, just as clearly, too many Americans disagree with his response.”

Democrats may “deserve this setback,” said the Financial Times, but Republicans surely don’t deserve victory. Despite stumbles, Democrats stabilized the financial system and took a “step in the right direction” with health reform. Republicans offered only obstruction, even when Obama continued the policies of President Bush. If Republicans view Tuesday as a “reward” for their irresponsibility, the future could be grim. It’s the GOP’s House now, said the Los Angeles Times. If they choose to, Republicans can offer “substantive proposals” and then “negotiate with their Democratic counterparts to turn them into law. Will they?”

What the columnists said

“Democrats blew through every warning sign” of rising voter discontent, said Rich Lowry in the New York Post. “They now confront a transformed political landscape in which the Tea Party they dismissed as corporate tools and loons looms large.” The incoming House Republican caucus will have about 60 freshmen “forged in the fires of the Tea Party, unschooled in the ways of Washington and not eager to learn them.” That’s not Democrats’ only problem, said William Kristol in the WeeklyStandard.com. On Tuesday, the conservative “blue dog” Democratic caucus in the House was nearly halved—dropping from 54 members to 26. That leaves House Democrats on the whole more liberal and “anti-war.” They may rend the party, forcing Obama to rely on GOP support “to stay the course in Afghanistan.”

Afghanistan may look peaceful compared with Washington next year, said Tim Rutten in the Los Angeles Times. House GOP leader Boehner has already vowed that there will be “no compromise” with Obama. Polls show that about 80 percent of voters want the two parties to meet in the middle to solve problems, but they’ll soon discover that Republicans have no interest in problem-solving whatsoever. I expect the next two years to be “one of the ugliest political periods in my lifetime,” said George Packer in NewYorker.com. It used to take about three decades for America’s political pendulum to swing. Now “we’re living in a time of instant eras. Bush’s permanent Republican majority lasted six years. Obama’s new liberalism lasted two.”

Amid these wild swings of policy and public support, America is losing its ability to adapt to crises, said John B. Judis in The New Republic Online. We face deep, structural economic problems, strong challenges from China and India, and the continuing dilemma of Afghanistan and Islamic terrorism. Economic uncertainty and America’s waning influence abroad have unleashed rising populist anger that Obama failed to channel constructively, leaving “a political vacuum that the right-wing populists of the Tea Party filled.” To avoid further incoherence and a lasting decline like Japan’s, we’ll need “consistent leadership.” Nothing about this election suggests we’ll soon get it.