In the United States the results of midterm polls have created great excitement. The voters are delighted. They believe they have inflicted defeat on a man whose Iraq policy is not working and whose domestic policies — immigration, health and tax cuts — are all hurting the common man. The Democrats are thrilled. They consider themselves White House hopefuls for 2008 and there is now an upbeat mood within the Democratic camp as it looks to the next presidential race. Having wrested control of the Senate and the House from the Republicans, they can now project their political strength from within the system. They will now control more Senate and House committees and can set the terms of debates on important national issues. They could now stonewall any new policy moves made by the Bush administration.
The political analysts too are pleased with the results. The Republican defeat testifies that American democracy holds those in power accountable in the peoples’ court. The average American’s voice counts. Democracy has the power to humble any arrogant man in the White House. It clips the wings of the powerful if they are naïve and dangerous. Some political scientists in the US view the Republican defeat as “normal” given the cyclical changes that determine which party controls the Senate and the House. Every ten to twelve years the control of the Congress shifts from the incumbent to the one in the opposition.
These cyclical patterns notwithstanding, there were factors peculiar to this election that influenced the results. The anti-war sentiments were especially obvious in the voting patterns. For example there were no winners from among the eight Iraq war veterans who contested for the House. In some states like Rhode Island, the strong anti-Bush sentiment compelled voters to vote out an otherwise popular and independent-minded Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee. Chafee was also the only Republican senator to vote against the war in Iraq. Perhaps he was swept away in the anti-Bush tide.
Significantly no incumbent Democrats in the House or the Senate lost their seats. The unexpectedly high voter turnout of around fifty-five percent also influenced the election results. The independents and the youth who normally do not vote in the midterm elections, voted in big numbers. This high turnout was prompted by strong public sentiment on issues like the Iraq war, health care, immigration bills along with voter mobilization by the two parties.
For now it is the “feel good” factor that is palpable within the US.
Now the question is whether the Republican defeat would lead to any imminent policy changes. For example will the world see a greater appreciation of multilateralism through efforts to involve the United Nations and other key nations in addressing global conflicts? In handling specific crisis will Washington encourage dialogue, even if backed by collective UN-led threat of force, instead of active regime change and pre-emptive strikes? Will Washington review its policies toward Iran, Palestine, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Iraq and to counter terrorism in general?
Maybe unlikely. On none of these issues the Democrats have presented real alternatives to the policies currently followed by the Bush administration.
On Iraq the departure of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld is the only policy shift that will take place. The speaker-designate Pelosi has already said in recent interviews that any cut in war funding will put “the US troops in harm’s way.” It appears unlikely that even on troop pullout the Democrats have an alternative plan they would push.
Finally if the only conclusive impact the vote will have, it will be to humble Bush the blunderer. That is no mean achievement. How many countries in the Muslim world can boast of a transparent and credible democracy where ballot power that actually works to hold the top man accountable?
For the Democrats this is a victory by default. It is a victory that neither a Democrat vision nor a Democrat leadership had inspired. It is the strong anti-Bush vote that got the Democrats the votes they needed to win. Nevertheless it breaks the 12-year-old cycle of defeat they had long been caught in. However practically the results will mean partisan grid-locked politics.
Meanwhile for a wiser US policy globally and especially toward the Middle East a more rigorous review of America’s post-9/11 policies is needed. But if the call from the chairman of the Republican Party National Committee moments after his party was defeated for a bipartisan consensus to defeat “Islamic fascism” is anything to go by political changes at home in the US are unlikely to translate into positive changes abroad.
