What last Tuesday means

Since last Tuesday night, I’ve heard the midterm election results negatively called a “red wave,” “the result of politics of fear,” and even “a failure of democracy.” This election was none of those things. If democracy did fail, it only failed as it always does. This election was not qualitatively different from that of 2008 or of 2000—or any other year in which one party took power from the other. A record number of House seats were handed over, but the reason that the American people selected the Republicans this year is no different than the reason they selected the Democrats in 2008.

Why was Obama elected with such an apparent mandate in 2008, and why did the Democrats control both the House of Representatives and the Senate after that? The answer is simple: The American people were fed up with Bush. They were suffering due to the economy, incensed about Iraq, and unsatisfied with high spending. The American people wanted a change, and Obama offered Change, so much so that at times it seemed he wasn’t campaigning against McCain, but against Bush. Voters reacted to that.

Last week, after two years of that Change, voters swung the other way. Why? The economy is still bad, Iraq is only sort of over, and Obama spent in one year as much as Bush did in eight. The “Summer of Recovery” was a dubious success at best and approval for his health care program is below 50 percent. Obama’s approval rating hovers at 45.4 percent. Americans voted for the Republicans hoping for a more responsible fiscal policy, just as they did in 2008. With regard to taxes, a CNN poll shows that 41 percent of voters are “not confident at all” in the Democrats and 52 percent are either “somewhat confident” or “very confident” in the Republicans.

So what does this election mean? It means that neither party has all the answers, that both parties miss the mark. This election, along with that of 2008, shows that it’s easy for the opposition party to criticize those in power but hard for that opposition to fix things once the roles are reversed. Last Tuesday demonstrates how democracy naturally swings back and forth between opposing sides.

The Republicans won the House, fought back in the Senate, and picked up many governorships, mainly by criticizing heavy spending and Obama’s expensive programs. But will they be able to do anything? Not with a Democratic majority in the Senate and Obama in the White House.

And maybe that is what voters want. I firmly believe that if an immediate disaster threatened this country, the Democrats and the Republicans would work together to solve it. However, with a divided government, neither side can pass legislation or enact costly programs.

Here in New York, especially at Columbia, it’s easy to forget that there is a world outside of our ivory tower. We might like to bemoan election results and even call other parts of the country backward for voting as they did. But rather than dismiss the flyover states as less hip, less urban, or less progressive, we must recognize that non-New Yorkers also vote in presidential elections and, more importantly, matter as Americans. It’s not consistent to celebrate a mandate for Change and perceived “progress” on behalf of the American people for voting one way in 2008 and then to condemn that same electorate as regressive and insane for voting another way in 2010. Rather, we should recognize that most Americans are not married to one ideology but simply want to live their lives happily, unencumbered by the government. Finally, we should recognize that they are not averse to switching sides every few years should one party fail to deliver.

The author is a first-year in Columbia College.