On Jeffersonian Revolutions (or On the Politics of Being 'Thumped')

Jefferson once said that a little revolution every now and then would be good for the country. What happened in the 2006 U.S. elections could be considered a 'little revolution'. I'm sure the incumbents might disagree as to the necessity but I digress. Let's examine what happened that day. What did the party in power do to trigger the revolt, what message or messages were the voters sending and what should the newly empowered party learn from the election?

First off, was the GOP asleep at the wheel? How else do you explain such a sweep where they lose the majority in both the U.S. House and Senate? Was it inevitable?

The Bush Administration leadership stance was that they thought that their current policies were taking the country in the desired direction. Stay the course - stick with the status quo. No one can force the Bush Administration to stray from their course. If they feel it is that imperative to continue their policies then it should be easy for them to convince the incoming majority of the wisdom of their decisions. I daresay that Bush's idea of 'Leadership' is to not waffle. While it can be said that you are being consistent with your principles, it also makes you susceptible to the sweet siren song of hubris. The question I would ask is, wouldn't it be prudent to at least entertain the notion that you could be wrong. In that situation, a little humility will go a long way. Think FDR during the Depression. He didn't defend a program that didn't work, he wanted results even if they came from a program that wasn't his own. Now that is real leadership. If you dismiss polls or the voices of your critics, when those voices get so loud as to sweep you out of power, they are essentially saying, "You are not listening to us!"

Secondly, the voters showed with their ballots that they have misgivings about the current policy direction. You can dismiss the pollsters and pundits, close the door on your critics, but you can not ignore the voices of the voters. It would be one thing if it was only the opposition party clamoring for attention. The danger is when you lump all who disagree with you into a single category. The political cartoon Doonesbury does this succinctly by having U.S. Soldiers refer to the Iraqi insurgents they are battling as 'Benchmark haters', subtly implying that those who disagree with the Bush Administration are in league with terrorists. The message the voters are sending is, "listen to us." We can disagree and still be loyal.

Thirdly, the biggest mistake the Democrats can make is to ignore the golden rule. Take the high road and treat the new Republican minority as you wished they had treated you. Also, don't waste the opportunity on investigating old dirt. Instead of trying to prove that the dirt is/was real, act as if all that uncovered dirt was real. Use the time you have to lead the country upwards and onwards instead of a vengeful trek into the mud. Be vigilant for new cases of ethical lapse, regardless of party. If the GOP had actually shown some gumption to address the misdeeds of their own members, the election may have had a different outcome.