What’s in store when Democrats lose the House?

PPost Before “read more” And here is the rest of it      
     

According to a recent survey published in yesterday’s The Washington Post, the battleground for the November 2 midterm elections is growing. At the moment, the Republicans need to win 39 seats to regain the majority in the House. While most of the 435 seats seem to remain occupied by the candidates of the party they belong to now, the number of seats in play has grown to 71. Out of this number, only five seats are presently held by the Republicans while 66 – by the Democrats. In view of the tendencies of the past several months it means almost a certain win by the Republican Party.

There is nothing new in the fact that the ruling party loses seats at the midterm elections. It is enough to remember 1994 when the Democrats lost both the House and the Senate to the Republicans, which led many to believe that in 1996 the then President Bill Clinton was doomed. He was not, and won the 1996 elections by a very comfortable margin.

But this time the situation seems different. Two years ago, Barack Obama was elected on the wave of deep dissatisfaction of Americans by the rule of his predecessor, George W. Bush. The level of enthusiasm was so high that Obama’s re-election seemed all but secured.

But the past two years have brought a sense of dissatisfaction which can be comparable to the feeling of most Americans towards the previous Republican administration. Obama’s unpopular measures in economy and social policy made the public turn their backs on the President they so vehemently adored two years ago. And his clumsy attempts to shift the focus onto another agenda (like international terrorism and the outside threat to US security) only add up to this dissatisfaction. The effect is nothing compared to the long lasting psychological effect of George W. Bush’ fight with terrorism, which was well grounded, and, at least in the eyes of ordinary Americans, well-directed. The prospect of Obama turning into a “second Jimmy Carter” - that is a president of only one term - is regarded as more than real by most observers in the US.

The fact that a couple of days ago the first lady Michelle Obama was named by the Forbes magazine as the most powerful woman in the world hardly helps her husband. On the contrary, it makes the public draw parallels with Bill and Hillary Clinton. It was generally perceived (and to a great extent it was true) that the real engine behind that couple was the then First Lady. So, promoting today’s First Lady to the rank of the most powerful woman while President Obama is gradually losing popularity only makes him appear even weaker than he probably is.

So, losing the House to the Republicans is almost imminent. Whether the Democrats will be able to retain the Senate is still an open question. But one thing is clear: it will be much harder for Obama’s administration to pursue its goals after January 2011 when the new Congress convenes.

And that means a lot of things, both internally and internationally. The probability of unpopular bills being torpedoed by the Congress is rising. And even the ratification of the most crucial international treaties may be stalled. This includes, among others, the START treaty with Russia which is supposed to be ratified simultaneously by the Congress and the Russian State Duma.

Obama’s administration from the very beginning made the ‘reset’ policy with regard to Russia one of its basic principles. But with Obama’s popularity falling, the Democrats demoralized and the right-wingers storming for an electoral victory, continuation of this policy becomes questionable.

So, by being unable to justify the hopes felt by the majority of Americans two years ago, Obama really is jeopardizing not only his own or his party’s positions, but a much broader set of issues. Global security, for example.

 Tags:
US midterm elections , Commentary, Politics, World