Obligatory Post Election Post

In a blog that is supposed to talk about thinking and ideas, and is hopeful, I pretty much have to talk about the election in the richest and most powerful country in the world.  There are going to be tens of millions of these, I hope you either like mine or at least find it interesting.

OVERVIEW

I'm going to start with my view of the general situation.  A bad but slowly recovering economy.  A very large debt with the worries of government not being able to supply present entitlement programs to an aging population at some point in the future.  A decade old war still ongoing but with an end in sight.  A fight about changes in health care.  A moral fight on gay marriage at close to the start of the legislative phase.  A moral fight on the use of marijuana for recreational purposes.

ELECTION RESULTS

President Obama won.  Handily in the Electoral College, which is what matters in an election, but with what is essentially a tie in the overall vote.  This difference demonstrates a basic problem with American politics.  Democrats did better in Senate races than expected at a very difficult time for them having to defend 16 seats and overturn just 5 seats.  Democrats still barely hold the Senate.  The Republicans hold the house with a small reduction in seats.  In summary, nothing has institutionally changed.  A President who got half of the electorate supported by a Senate that doesn't have the ability to push through legislation against much resistance, and a defiantly oppositional House.

WHAT THIS MEANS IN GOVERNMENT

While nothing has changed this can only be viewed as a substantial victory for Democrats simply in that they have a say at all.  This is an election that the Republicans "should" have won.  A terrible economy with a dysfunctional government with a moderate Republican presidential candidate, an incumbent majority in the House, and a close Senate with several times the opportunities for Republicans to overturn seats.  This is a perfect scenario for Republicans to have the super-majority necessary to push through the agenda that they wanted.  What they have is simply the ability to obstruct Democratic plans.

In summary, while the incumbent Democrats are not popular people, the Republican philosophy has been rejected.  I think this is a fundamental shift in US politics, that would have happened in 2004 if it wasn't for 9/11/2001.  At that time W. was operating on the standard Republican platform since the Reagan years, and was deeply, deeply unpopular.  His popularity was transformed by terrorists successfully attacking the USA.  Either Republicans need to alter their basic platform, or the Democrats need to screw up royally, or something catastrophic needs to happen for Republicans to get back to a position of constructive power where they can initiate change rather than just obstruct it.

However, the Democrats can't gloat too much.   There is still a major Republican lead in the House, and yet again in 2014 there are more Democrat seats in the Senate up for re-election (20-13).  While the biggest driver of elections, the economy, can only be reasonably expected to improve and bolster Democratic chances, it is still quite possible that in 2014 we could find ourselves in the uber-gridlock of a Congress/President divide.  For the next four years don't expect major change.

Growth between recessions seems to me to last between eight and ten years, we are something like a year into this stage, and so we can expect an improving economy all the way up until the 2016 elections in which Republicans are vulnerable in the Senate, eight years of Republican obstructionism may weigh on House elections, and if Hillary Clinton runs there will be an experienced, strong campaigner with a built-in election machine up against someone most of us haven't heard of at the moment.  It could be great news for Democrats and devastation for the Republicans.  Twelve years of a Democrat President, fourteen years of a Democrat(ish) Senate, and possibly a House majority.

FUTURE POLITICS

The Republicans are a divided group between scorched earth anti-government zealots with deep rooted moral objections to change, and fiscal conservatives who are worried about the debt, the expansion of government, and are slow to change their moral positions.  This division makes it very hard to win general elections, as we saw in this campaign.  A candidate has to run in the primaries as potential crazed right wing zealot (anti-evolution, anti-climate change, anti-government in all cases, private sector is always better etc..) and then switch to the moderate fiscal conservative against Democrats.  Romney actually did a superlative job of this and still lost to a vulnerable President.  How can they win big elections (Senate and President) with this problem?  They can't.  Local districts are much more concentrated in their beliefs, and so this switching becomes less necessary.

How can Republicans stay true to their ideology of small government and moral conservatism and still win elections?  I have an idea.  Run campaigns on state's rights.  A campaign to characterize the federal government as having the support of half the country but having power over the whole country as being fundamentally undemocratic, against the American ideal of liberty, and as being contrary to the wishes of the founders.  Give the power back to local authorities so communities can decide for themselves how they want to live, and what values they will hold.  I think this has very wide appeal to Americans.  The Blue states want independence from the craziness of the Red ones, and vice versa.  It will mean an even more divided country, but a less hateful one too, should this path be advanced and actually adhered to.  In the very long term this divide will lead to left-wing, wealthy, European-style coasts, and right-wing, poor, traditional middle.

I actually think there is going to be a battle between the two wings of the Republican party, between pragmatists who think there must be a change at least in image, and ideologues unwilling to shift one iota.  Hopefully this battle manifests itself with moderate Republicans making reasonable deals with Democrats and neutering the Tea Party.  I don't have much hope for that in the next two years.

If you think that money and influence to support rampant capitalism are going anywhere, I am sorry, but no.

ACTUAL FUTURE EFFECTS

Foreign policy is going to fade from the spotlight.  The US will still be a major power in the world, but will be largely non-interventionist.  There won't be big invasions, the US is tired of them (while not morally opposed), but there will still be largely covert (to the uncaring US population) action of assassination, undermining, sabotage, sanctions, and diplomatic efforts.  As democracy spreads across the world , and trade becomes more and more global, the similarities and connections between nations and regions will increase.  It's much harder to start wars if the other country looks and acts like you, and you make money together.  The path of increased freedom, peace, prosperity will continue to be followed.

Perhaps the biggest world issue is climate change.  I think the series of devastating hurricanes experienced by the US recently, and quite possibly again in the near future, will be enough to convince an adequate majority of Americans that "something must be done."  However, Americans will not want that "something" to affect their pocket book or lifestyle.  There will be change, but too slow to make a huge difference.  We will have to rely on technology to get us out of this.  Hopefully there will be enough sensible people to spend less money on R&D than it would take to reduce emissions through punitive measures, but still a lot of money.

Entitlements, social security and medicaid etc. costs will only go up.  People are living longer, and so the population is aging, and modern medicine will always cost more than older medicine as it is old medicine plus new medicine.  Changes to these programs must happen, but they will happen through minor but incremental changes.  Congress isn't going to agree to socialized medicine and increasing the starting age of social security by a decade tomorrow, but they might well have managed to plan for these steps in twelve years to happen another decade.  The alternatives are massive tax increases, bankrupting the government, or letting the old and weak die off in the streets.

I think the most underrated  effect in terms of importance to coverage is the likelihood that another supreme justice will be appointed by Obama, and possibly two.  That would mean three lifelong appointments to the highest court in the land by a single president.  Obama's influence will continue for decades after his presidency ends.

MORALITY

If you look at history, at least since the Enlightenment, there has been a consistent and steady progress towards what is now called the "liberal" side.  Increased social rights for more and more people, and bigger and bigger safety nets.  In this election the main moral questions were "do we provide health care to the poor?" "can gay people get married?" "can you smoke marijuana in the privacy of your own home for fun?"  These questions have not been settled by any means, but in all cases the movement has gone much more towards "yes" than "no."  This movement has happened almost exclusively in the Blue states, and will inevitably continue in those areas.  Fighting federal campaigns largely based on opposition to this movement is futile.  The best the Red states can do in this area over the long term is to fight for states' rights.  "If those heathens want to do disgusting things then that's up to them and God will sort it out.  But don't tell us we have to agree to your sordid ways."  I think that's a compromise that is possible and good for the country.  Hating people from a greater distance is better than hating them up close.

Unfortunately what I feel are the biggest moral questions were simply ignored.  There was no debate about whether it is morally acceptable to kill people without trial with robots in the sky.  There was no debate about whether it is morally acceptable to imprison foreign nationals indefinitely without the same rights to a fair trial guaranteed by our own constitution.  There was no debate about whether it is morally acceptable to have different rules for different countries (possession of nuclear weapons, acceptable democratically elected officials, etc.) and whether it is acceptable to fight wars or collapse economies to maintain these differences.  Iran is a perfect example.  There was no debate about whether the USA has the responsibility to lift the poorest nations out of their poverty by sacrificing a small part of our great wealth.

SUMMARY

The nation is dragging itself along towards a better future like a wounded animal.  But we heal a little bit over time.  Sometimes there are flashes of pain, but we are moving.  In twenty years most of the things that progressives want now will have been gained.  A substantial number of people calling themselves conservative will be fighting to preserve in their original form those great institutions that progressives are now fighting to get.  The different sides will still be howling their outraged indignation at each other and have spend almost none of their time looking back at where we came from.