A Moderate Win
Friday, November 17, 2006
|
|
|
I'm already on record in this space admitting that I am a moderate and complaining that our two largest political parties have ignored moderates while pandering to the extremists who make up their "base." The result of the recent mid-term election should give them pause to rethink this strategy, which has been predicated on the supposition that the moderate vote will split down the middle and make the turnout of the base the key to victory.
According to the exit polls, nearly half of the voters identified themselves as moderates. And a significant number reported that, while they voted Republican the last time around, this time they switched. In truth, this is not the first time this behavior has been observed. In 2002, moderates who voted Democrat in the, so-close some still doubt the results, election of 2000 switched to vote Republican, rallying around the Republican President in a time of crisis. The lesson to be learned is that one ignores the moderates at one's peril.
What does it all mean? Judging by the muted stock market reaction, investors do not fear a Democratic Congress. Whether that is because Democrats said throughout the campaign that, Republican charges notwithstanding, they were not anti-business or because the President still has his veto pen, even though he never used it during his first six years in office, is not clear. But both sides are making encouraging noises about compromise and working together. Just the kind of thing moderates like.
The cynic in me isn't hopeful, but, just in case, what would a centrist legislative program look like? Probably the most promising area for compromise is on immigration reform. Business has a big interest in both making our borders secure and insuring the legal employment of foreign workers. The President was fighting a split Republican caucus on this issue and may well find it easier to negotiate with Democrats.
He is less likely to get what he wants on trade - another issue in which he was at odds with members of his own party. That's because Democrats are likely to try to tie provisions protecting American jobs and industries to trade breaks for other nations, and there is some Republican support for these ideas.
Some commentators are predicting that the combination of a President concerned about his legacy and a Congress controlled by the opposition party could produce a landmark deal on Social Security and Medicare. That would take statesmanship of the highest caliber, but is the stuff of which moderates dream.
Business fears that any chance of Sarbanes-Oxley reform was lost in the Republican defeat. But, in fact, few Republicans were pushing for a major relaxation of the Sar-Ox requirements, and many Democrats agree that some relief from the cost of Sar-Ox compliance is appropriate for mid and small sized businesses. The Democrats' victory does probably prevent major changes in tax policy or environmental regulation and some grid-lock on appointments, until we see what the presidential election of 2008 brings.
The biggest mistake the Democrats could make would be to assume the election gave them a mandate for major change. The vast majority of the moderate voters who switched parties cited Iraq as the reason. One issue does not a mandate make, and we moderates are a fickle bunch. Score one for the moderates. The next two years will be interesting, indeed.
