I am still trying to figure out the dynamics resulting from Tuesday's election. At the very least, it continues a dynamic, by and large, of the combination of a fickle, easily-swayed electorate with a roughly equal partisan split. Coming after two national election cycles in a row after clear Democratic dominance, and just two years after many eulogies for the Republican Party (including from yours truly), the big question is - how did this happen?
I want to believe, "It's the economy, stupid," but, really, the Democrats took control of both Houses of Congress in 2006 while things were still going pretty well (although the economy was boosted by massive fraud). Furthermore, the Democrats actually did pretty well for playing defense.
The real story - one you probably won't hear discussed too much - is the effect of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision on the election. By invalidating limits on corporate and union giving; by going further and opening up direct campaigning by corporate entities; this decision set the stage for something Americans haven't seen in a very long time. The mask of indirect financing and giving limits now legally stripped away, we had an election the terms of which were set by corporate America. While this has been the case since the rise of corporate entities, this election was the first since the Gilded Age when they didn't even have to pretend. In many ways, this Congress is the best our corporations could buy. Had I a guess, Tea Party candidates are going to find themselves facing a conundrum - elected on a platform of anger at Pres. Obama, seeking certain legislative goals like repealing Health Care and balancing the budget, they may just arrive in Washington in January with corporate lobbyists and senior members of the Republican legislative leadership sitting down with these newly-minted legislators and giving them the straight poop. While I doubt many of them will be naive of ingenuous enough to go public with the reality that they've been had, some might balk at being what they really are - willing accomplices in an agenda for which they feel they have not been elected.
It is impossible, I think, to understand the dynamics of this election without taking the reality created by the Citizens United decision in to account. Of course, for left-wing critics of both this election cycle and the Obama Administration, we have to face certain realities that contradict this narrative. If Obama is, indeed, in very deep hock particularly to corporate banking interests (and, really, there isn't much doubt about that), and was willing to give away most of the store in re-regulating the financial industry, why was there not more support for Democrats?
Were I to hazard a guess - and it is just a guess - I think there are two reasons. First, even though the regulatory regime for banks was seriously flawed, that any kind of regulation exists is anathema. Financial services have existed under a cowboy regime for so long, having to abide by certain laws probably just seems wrong. Even though it brought them, and all the rest of us, near the brink of collapse, the principle is at stake.
Furthermore, one key piece of the liberal agenda not acted upon by the previous Congress would, had that party continued to hold both Houses of Congress, have come up. Known as "card check", this refers to a reform of existing labor law that would allow for secret ballots for workers to move toward organizing themselves. Particularly since the goal of organized labor is the massive retail sector - think Target/Wal-Mart/Borders - and you start to realize the potential threat posed by a new legal regime that allows organization to proceed in silence.
Without realizing that this Congress is bought and paid for, anything anyone says really doesn't mean anything.
