Obama Called for Change: Now Voters Call for Obama to Change

Obama Called for Change:
Now Voters Call for Obama to Change
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 4, 2010

Two years ago, Barack Obama called for "change," and was elected president. He swept both the Senate and the House, achieving a majority in both. Two years later, a majority of voters in the US said "No!" to Obama and the changes he wrought. The Republicans swept the House during the midterm elections, achieving a majority. It gained 60 seats. They also gained six seats in the Senate, where the Democrats now hold a mere one seat majority. In the gubernatorial elections, the Republicans took at least ten states from the Democrats.

Two years ago Obama was elected under highly favorable circumstances. The Democrats controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. But because Obama wielded a parliamentary majority in Congress, he was too rash while promoting his bills. White House and Democratic congressional leaders refused to compromise on anything -- from health care reform, to economic stimulus programs, to bank reform. Their legislative record was outstanding. But they left the public with the impression they were arrogant.

Obama's governing team also showed signs of disintegration. Cabinet leaders engaged in backstabbing. Many senior White House aides resigned just before the midterm elections, revealing a "rats deserting a sinking ship" mindset. Six months before the election Obama already detected an increase in public dissatisfaction. He even brought back David Plouffe, his 2008 presidential campaign advisor. But the tide had already turned.

The focus of attention this time was undeniably the Tea Party. It failed to receive as many votes as anticipated. Several high-profile candidates, including Christina O'Donnell and Sharon Angle, failed to win. But at least three state senators and a large number of Tea Party congressmen were elected. The Tea Party stressed spending cuts and small government. Overnight it went from a political movement to a political party. It is now entering Congress. Will it form a separate political caucus? Or is it gradually learning the rules of the power game, and about to be co-opted by the establishment? The answer remains to be seen.

The midterm election defeat will seriously constrain the Obama administration over the next two years. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has left office, to be replaced by Republican Majority Leader John Boehner. Every House committee will be chaired by a Republican. The congressional agenda and legislative review process will be controlled by the opposition GOP. As a result no one party will be able to pass legislation. In the House, the Republican majority will surely pass legislation disliked by Obama. In the Senate, the Republicans will find it easier to block legislation they do not like. Of course the White House can veto bills sent to it by Congress. But the end result is likely to be a refusal to compromise by either side. This will lead to congressional deadlock and administrative paralysis. This has happened before. During the 1992 midterm elections, Newt Gingrich led the Republicans to a stunning victory and a showdown with President Clinton and the Democratic Party. Even the federal budgets could not be passed. This led to a shutdown of the federal government.

This would not necessarily be bad for Obama. In fact, the Republicans know that if the government were shut down, they would not escape censure. In the end, they would have to share responsibility. Eventually Clinton reached a compromise with the Republicans. As a result Clinton successfully won re-election in 1996, and the Republicans retained their legislative majority. With a little give and take, the two sides each got what they wanted.

On the foreign policy front, diplomacy has seldom been an issue during midterm elections. But people outside the US were surprised to hear Republicans and the Tea Party blast Obama as unpatriotic. As Sarah Palin put it, Obama “doesn’t appear to believe that America is the greatest earthly force for good the world has ever known.” These critics of Obama believe the US is the most powerful, most moral nation on earth. They cannot accept other nations rising up to challenge the US. They believe therefore that the legal norms of other nations should not constrain the US. It was precisely this blind ideology that allowed Bush II to launch his invasion of Iraq. The prospect of Obama losing his bid for re-election two years is unimaginable to the rest of the world. The prospect of people who think this way returning to power is inconceivable.

The international community held high expectations of Obama. But two years have passed, and he has achieved little. The Middle East peace talks are stalled, again. The Iran and North Korea nuclear talks are stalled, again. No agreement has been reached on the Environmental Summit in Copenhagen. The US has suffered defeat after defeat on the battlefields of Afghanistan. Even relations with Beijing have regressed. Obama cannot rely on "I'm not Bush" alone to change the impression the world has of the US, The world's problems remain. In the two years that Obama has left, he must find a way to win the world's respect.

Three weeks from now, five cities on Taiwan will hold municipal elections. Conditions in the US may be different. But the midterm elections in the US offer a number of lessons for Taiwan. First, a midterm election is a vote of confidence in the government. This is true for the US. This will also be true for the five cities elections on Taiwan. If the opposition party receives the endorsement of the public, those in power must heed the warning. But if the ruling party candidate receives the endorsement of the public, the opposition party should also ask itself whether its ideas are outdated.

Secondly, midterm elections usually involve change. Mature and independent voters may change the way they vote. This was true in 1994 with Clinton. This was true when Reagan took over in 1982. Both presidents suffered midterm election defeats. But both were re-elected. Anyone who proclaims that the political climate has changed, may find two years later, that they were overly optimistic.

Finally, the results of the midterm election will be known by midnight on election day. That will mark the official beginning of the 2012 US presidential election. Certain candidates will emerge in the coming two years. Others will be eliminated. Political competition is cruel. There will be even less time following the five cities elections on Taiwan. Only one year and three months. The results of the five cities elections and the presidential election will be even more closely bound together.

號召選民改變 歐巴馬反被選民改變
2010-11-04
中國時報

兩年前，歐巴馬以「Change」為號召，不僅選上總統，也席捲參、眾兩院的多數。兩年後，美國多數選民同樣以選票，對歐巴馬與他帶來的變化說不！美國期中選舉揭曉，共和黨席捲眾議院多數，足足增加了六十席，而在參議院也增加六席，民主黨僅比半數多一席，州長選舉方面，共和黨則從民主黨手上奪下至少十州。

回顧兩年前歐巴馬當選時，情勢非常有利，白宮與參眾兩院都由民主黨控制，但也因為自恃有國會多數，歐巴馬推動法案時，操之過急，從健保改革、刺激景氣方案到銀行改革法案，白宮與民主黨國會領導人都不願妥協，立法效率很高，可是卻給別人傲慢的印象。

歐巴馬的執政團隊也呈現分崩離析，部長們互放暗箭，許多白宮資深幕僚紛紛在期中選舉前辭職他就，呈現大慘敗前先跳船的心態。而早在選前半年，歐巴馬其實就已看到民眾不滿在升高，他還特地把總統選舉的軍師普樂夫找回來操盤，但頹勢已難再扳回。

無可否認，這次矚目的焦點是茶黨，它所獲得的支持並不如事先的預期，幾位知名度高的候選人，包括歐唐納、費歐娜、安格爾都沒有當選，但是至少三個州的參議員，以及為數不少眾議員都打著茶黨候選人的名號當選。強調減少開支、小政府的茶黨，一夜之間，已從政治運動轉化成政治黨派，將來進入國會，是會形成單獨政團？還是逐步學習華府的權力遊戲規則，被吸納入體制？仍有待觀察。

期中選舉的挫敗，對歐巴馬政府未來兩年的運作，將造成嚴重的牽制。除了眾議院議長裴洛西去職，由共和黨多數黨領袖貝納出任，所有委員會主席都將換成共和黨人擔任，舉凡議程安排，法案審查，都會受反對黨控制。導致沒有任何一黨有能力單獨推動政策，在眾議院，占多數的共和黨一定會通過歐巴馬不樂見的法案，而參議院中，共和黨會更有效的阻擋他們不喜歡的法案，當然白宮也可以否決國會送來的法案，最後的結果很可能是雙方都不肯退讓，釀成僵局，行政停擺。這不是沒有發生過，一九九二年期中選舉，金瑞契領導的共和黨大勝，與民主黨的柯林頓總統對著幹，連預算都通不過，導致聯邦政府關門。

這未必對歐巴馬不利，事實上，共和黨知道政府停止運轉，國民的責難無可逃避，最後還是要分攤責任，共和黨後來與柯林頓達成妥協，結果一九九六年柯林頓依然連任成功，而共和黨仍然取得國會多數，各讓一步，雙方政治上也各有所獲。

在對外方面，外交向來不是期中選舉的重要議題，但是美國以外的人卻訝異的發現，共和黨與茶黨的批評歐巴馬不愛國，用裴琳的話來說，是：「不相信美國是世界上僅見、為善的力量」。他們認為美國是最強大的、最有道德的，無法接受其他挑戰美國的國家興起，所以規範其他國家的法律，不應該約束美利堅，就是這種盲目的意識形態，讓布希發動侵伊拉克戰爭，全世界不敢想像，歐巴馬如果再輸掉兩年後的連任選戰，這樣想法的人回來執政，會變成什麼局面。

國際社會曾對歐巴馬有很高的期待，但兩年下來，他並沒有做成什麼，中東和談再度陷入僵局、伊朗與北韓的核武談判停頓，哥本哈根環保高峰會沒有達成協議，阿富汗戰場敗仗連連，甚至與中國的關係都比以前退步。要轉變世界對美國的印象，歐巴馬單單靠「我不是布希」是不夠的，世界的問題都還在那裡，在剩下的兩年中，他必須要拿出辦法來，才能贏得世界的尊重。

三周之後台灣將舉行的五都選舉，雖然國情不同，但是美國期中選舉卻對台灣有若干的啟示。首先，期中選舉是對政府的信任投票，在美國如此，在台灣五都選舉也將會是如此，如果反對黨獲得民眾支持，這是當政者應該深自警惕的，但是如果執政黨候選人受到支持，反對黨也應該檢討自己的主張是否不合時宜。

其次，期中選舉的結果，就像過去的幾次期中選舉一樣，通常是變動的，成熟的獨立選民會來回選擇，在一九九四年柯林頓時如此、一九八二年雷根主政時也是如此，而且這兩位期中選舉遭逢挫敗的總統，都獲選連任，任何人宣稱「政治版圖」已經轉移，兩年之後，都會發現過度樂觀。

最後，從二日午夜期中選舉結果揭曉後，二○一二年的美國總統大選就正式起跑，誰會在這兩年間出頭，誰會被潮流給淘汰，政治的競爭是很直接殘酷的，台灣五都選後的時間更短，只有一年三個月，五都選舉的結果與總統大選，將會更緊密的綁在一起。