RALEIGH – On Tuesday, I attended a special political-discussion panel at North Carolina’s annual 4-H Congress in Raleigh. Moderated by Tom Campbell and structured as a mock “NC Spin” episode, the program included four stellar young panelists from the 4-H ranks and attracted the attention of hundreds of the state’s most-impressive and accomplished youth.
There was a disquieting moment, however. Campbell asked the audience to identify themselves by a show of hands as Democrats, Republicans, or something else. The party allegiances were roughly equal (4-Hers are not a precisely representative sample of all teens, who polls show would lean a bit more Democratic). Then, the NC Spin host asked for supporters of Barack Obama to raise their hands. They did so with enthusiasm and applause. Finally, he asked for supporters of John McCain to raise their hands. Almost as many did so, but they were jeered loudly by some of the Obama supporters. Several sitting close to me said they couldn’t believe anyone disagreed with Obama.
I don’t relate the story to impugn anyone’s motives or preferences (though respectful decorum should be the rule). Rather, I fear that many political partisans – and not just those youth who lack the requisite life experience – are letting their expectations get away from them. I know some Democrats who, like the young people I met Tuesday, will be bewildered and crushed if Obama is not elected the next president of the United States this fall. And I know some Republicans who will react with horror and despair, if not quite as much bewilderment, if John McCain loses the election.
It’s great to believe passionately in a political cause or candidate. It’s not healthy, however, to discount or misunderstand one’s opposition and to draw unrealistic conclusions about the capacity of any one political leader to engineer radical change, for good or ill.
With regard to the Obama-McCain contest itself, partisans ought to be cautious about assuming victory. There’s no question that the odds favor the Democrat, given President Bush’s low approval rating and general public angst. But it is entirely possible that McCain will end up winning a close November vote. A fair-minded observer would have to grant that Obama has little experience in Washington, in foreign and defense policy, or in running any large organization, be it in the public or private sector. His record is also one of the most left-leaning in the U.S. Senate. Swing voters could conceivably conclude that while they like the man, and would welcome the prospect of electing a non-white president, they should give McCain the edge based on experience or relative moderation.
Similarly, while some conservatives and Republican partisans might believe that the 2006 Democratic surge was a fleeting response to bad luck and Bush administration incompetence, it would be foolish not to recognize what the available data and historical experience reveal. Political parties shouldn’t count on winning three back-to-back presidential elections in any event. Add in concern about gas prices, the economy, international tensions, and other factors, and you can explain the current odds in Obama’s favor even without crediting his personal attractions or noting McCain’s age.
One side is going to be disappointed, inherently. But each side ought at least to prepare itself against the possibility of shock.
More important still is not to yield to the political equivalent of “irrational exuberance” about the immediate effects of an Obama or McCain administration. Although both men differ from Bush in important ways, neither will be capable of waving a magic wand to dispel economic turmoil or reduce energy prices. They may possess more knowledge or diplomatic skill, but neither is capable of dispelling most of today’s international tensions (Obama is personally popular abroad, for example, but some of his stated policies, particularly on free trade and Pakistan, will not be).
The American constitutional system is dissimilar from parliamentary government in fundamental ways. Presidents aren’t guaranteed to have their legislation pass Congress intact, even when it is controlled by the same party. Elections are frequent and can be unpredictable. In 2004, Republicans gained four seats in the U.S. Senate, reelected Bush, and maintained a House majority, giving them more power in Washington than they had enjoyed in more than a half-century. Two years later, things looked very different. Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 started a similar pattern, with a unified Democratic government lasting only two years.
Our system tends to make gradual changes in public policy, not revolutionary ones. It should be possible to care about politics without allowing political disagreements to become personal, or political expectations to soar so far into the stratosphere that they can only be brought back down to Earth with a devastating crash.
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation.