An anti-Adminstration, anti-Democratic political wave, sparked by the

Obama-Pelosi.Reid legislative agenda (and marked by the upset election of

new Senator Scott Brown in Massachusetts) is currently washing

ashore in the still-forming political climate of 2010.

 

But it is only the first wave of several that will become visible on the politcal

beaches in coming months, and political surfers (candidates, journalists, analysts

and consultants) need to remember that other waves, some larger, some smaller,

and some similar, will appear between now and election day.

 

Unquestionably, this first wave was bad news for the party in power and its

incumbent candidates for contests in the U.S. senate and house. The drama of

the Scott Brown upset led many, on both sides, to anticipate  change in the

president’s policies and an effort by him, his staff and his advisors to move back

to the political center. That conclusion was logical and professional in nature.

So far, the very opposite is happening. President Obama is reinforcing his agenda

and regrouping to push it through.

 

Presidents are often, at critical moments, not logical nor predictable. More often

than not, their unexpected directions lead to survival and even eventual success.

President Clinton, after his mid-term political defeat in 1994, reversed field to the

center. President George W. Bush, after his mid-term political defeat in 2006,

changed his mind about the level of force in Iraq. Clinton ended his presidency

on a positive note (notwithstanding his personal problems). President Bush ended

his with a successful “surge.” Both men were succeeded by presidents from the

other party.

 

Politics, like most matters in life, rarely goes in a straight line. It would be 

unrealistic to expect that all the political waves ahead will be bad for Democrats

and good for Republicans. On the other hand, the trend of electoral events

does have a momentum of its own, especially as an election day approaches.

 

That is what is so curious about the apparent decision of Mr. Obama and his

entourage to “tough it out” and not retreat on their agenda, nor to revise it.

Many are now trying to explain this. Those who favor his radical agenda say

his commitment to change is greater than his desire for political popularity, that

Mr. Obama believes he has an historical opportunity to make significant change.

His quoted line that he would rather be a successful one-term president than a

mediocre two termer fits this kind of rationalization. Those who oppose his agenda

say that Mr Obama and his advisors (and congressional allies) are so isolated and

arrogant, they do not see political reality, i.e., the powerful negative reaction of a 

clear majority of voters to much of their agenda. These opponents also point to the

formerly independent national media becoming transformed into mere cheerleaders

for the Administration as contributing to the delusive bunker atmosphere of

unreality in the national capital.

 

Each of these analyses have some merit, but having observed politics as long as I have,

it is more difficult to agree with a theory that those who hold power will sacrifice it

to some abstract, transitory ideas. Those presidents who do are usually dreadful failures.

Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter fit this category, Well-meaning they may have initially

been, but they missed the point on the true challenges of their time. It is too early to

tell for sure, but this seems to be the path that Barack Obama is choosing.

 

What we know now we knew before. Mr. Obama is a political amateur. His campaign

for the presidency was well done, particulary employing the new technologies of the

internet and communications. But we forget that, with his nomination apparently locked

up, he almost lost it to Hillary Clinton, a political professional, in the final weeks of the

nomination contest.

 

Mr. Obama is not the first amateur to run for very high office, but he is the first amateur

president. His first year, however aggressive his agenda, has been marked by a series of

mis-steps, miscalculations and poor judgment. His foreign policy is littered with errors

and rife with potential disasters. Having set up radical expectations for his left liberal base,

any attempts now to move to the center are being met with bitter rebuke and denunciation.

It is very difficult to proceed in the presidency without your political base.

 

Until we know who are the final candidates for the House and Senate seats for 2010,

we won’t know the dimensions of the outcomes in November. International and

market forces not in anyone’s control can yet produce contrarian or otherwise

unpredictable waves.

 

But President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid are inviting an

unprecedented insurrection among their own troops by persisting with their agenda.

The poll numbers, however imprecise, are too dramatic  and overwhelming for any

Democratic incumbent or challenger to go along with a leadership that is willing to

sacrifice them to an abstract goal, however romantic it is.

 

In the next several weeks and months, ending in August (or in a few cases, early

September) the two parties will name their candidates. The rhetoric of Mr. Obama,

Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Reid, notwithstanding, I  anticipate that the laws of gravity will

ultimately prevail, as they always have, on the critical wave of the next election day.