The 2010 Congressional elections are in our rear view mirrors, but I thought I'd revisit the results. While tax cuts are front and center and conversations are turning to 2011 and beyond, I contend that our leaders remain squarely on a road of misinterpretation.
In each of the past two elections, citizens have sent a message. (I say “citizens” because many of those who choose not to vote, regardless of the overall turnout numbers, are sending a message as well.) But, today’s politicians are prone to misinterpretation, even if they say they are listening.
It is too easy to say that the electorate wants “change,” especially given the stark pendulum swings we’ve witnessed in the past two election cycles. In a two-party system, the idea of change is all too enticing to the victor. Yet, in truth, change is nebulous, change is complicated, and the victorious party is eager to define change as a rejection of the other side (as opposed to really listening to what the electorate wants to see in its leaders.)
This is where our elected officials miss the boat.
In my view, the change the electorate wants is real compromise…to roll up sleeves, regardless if you are red or blue, and find some answers to the nation’s problems because guess what, we’ve got some big ones to solve. (The No Labels effort epitomizes this sentimet as well.)
But, when elections pit “me vs. thee,” voters have few options except vacillating between red and blue candidates to try to get the change they want, the change that “works.” How else can you explain a 17-point swing in Independent voters in two years!
Yes, 2010 was another election for change, but given the tone of the debate across the country this election season, I am not optimistic that newly elected officials will answer the electorate’s true call for change.
No comments:
Post a Comment