U.S. Voters Slower Than Brits, But Finally Arrive at Same Conclusion
On a cool day under fair skies, droves of voters resolved to send a clear message that they disapproved of their leader’s policies on Iraq. Though the head of government was not in jeopardy of losing his position, the rank and file of his party would be purged from the legislature, making it impossible for the party, accustomed to power, to carry on ignoring the concerns of the electorate.
I was in London when Tony Blair’s Labour Party suffered a bloody nose in the UK parliamentary elections of May 2005. But of course this scenario just as well describes how things played out on Election Day here in New York and across the United States. Only in New York the sky was gray and threatening rain.
Partly on the strength of his approval ratings, Mr. Blair forged ahead in Iraq, scorning the cautionary advice of some members of his own party and the vocal dissent of the majority of the British public. Voters felt left out of the decision-making process and determined to voice their ire. Yet they weren’t inspired by the opposition Tories, the conservative party that offered no opposition to Mr. Blair’s Iraq policy. Deserving or not, the Tories benefited from the anti-Labour backlash. So did smaller parties who offered stiffer resistance on Iraq but didn’t stand a chance of amassing a majority. The Liberal Democrats picked up seats as did the newly-formed Respect Party coalition, led by the polemical George Galloway, an ex-Labour member whose only platform issue seemed to be his abhorrence for the Iraq War.
In Britain the parliamentary elections determine who heads the government. Voters elect their districts’ Members of Parliament, and the leader of the party in the majority becomes (or remains) Prime Minister. Although many Brits would have cheered Mr. Blair’s eviction from Downing Street, the Tory leader, Michael Howard, was an even more dismal prospect. And he supported the war. Voters decided to leave Labour in power but teach Mr. Blair a lesson.
When the dust settled, Mr. Blair retained his office but with a much reduced majority. It did more than just give the Prime Minister an education in humility. It also put an end to the days when Mr. Blair could count on his party’s massive majority to push legislation through parliament virtually uncontested. He would now have to worry over the support of individual Labour MPs and even lobby support from other parties. In other words, he’d have to seek backing, almost ask permission, before acting. Call it checks and balances.
In the beginning, Americans were generally more supportive of the War than the British who largely opposed the policy of preemptive strike even before the first bursts of “Shock and Awe.” Perhaps that’s why it’s taken longer for Americans to serve up their punishment. Timing and the differences in the two countries’ political systems could have something to do with it as well.
American voters first had an opportunity to pass judgment on Mr. Bush’s presidency in the 2004 elections. But this was only a year and a half into the war, and many still held out hope for a positive outcome. September 11 was fresher in the mind, and the public wanted to believe that the war in Iraq was making them safer somehow. The specter of weapons of mass destruction remained. And alas, the Democrats didn’t offer an attractive alternative either in policy or politicians. John Kerry failed to articulate a clear vision. Nor did he inspire strong passions. Voters require at least one of the two.
After his 2004 victory, President Bush declared that he had earned political capital in that election, adding that he intended to spend it. After the inconclusive election that put him in the Oval Office in the first place, he felt vindicated to have been elected again, with a majority of the vote this time. He indulged in a little swagger.
Mr. Bush likes to divide people into two camps, those “with” him and those “against.” At some point, it seems he decided that the people who are with him are the only people who matter. Like Mr. Blair, he began to take power for granted.
Two years later Americans have made it clear that they’ve had enough, and they’ve taken it out on Republican candidates for national and state offices. As with Mr. Blair in the UK election, being affiliated with President Bush was a liability at the ballot box. Try as they may to distance themselves from their party’s leader, Republicans were voted out largely for their GOP membership.
President Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” took back the White House for the Republicans in 2000 just as Prime Minister Blair’s “New Labour” brought his party in from the wilderness in 1997. But in politics, you are only as popular as the last election says you are. Because of Iraq, both men will finish out their terms as lame ducks, with many in their parties anxiously awaiting their departures.
Republicans would do well now to heed the Labour Party’s present troubles. Even after the parliamentary elections, Labour remained the strongest party in Britain. The Tories were seen as the butt of all jokes and deemed completely unelectable in the foreseeable future. A year after the vote, it is Labour that is in disarray, and the Conservatives are tipped to take power in the next general election. But Labour has until 2009 or 2010 to try to erase the memories of their mistakes. The Republicans have just two short years.
tags: 2006 election, Congress, George W. Bush, Republicans, Democrats, Tony Blair, Labour, Tories, politics,Iraq War
On a cool day under fair skies, droves of voters resolved to send a clear message that they disapproved of their leader’s policies on Iraq. Though the head of government was not in jeopardy of losing his position, the rank and file of his party would be purged from the legislature, making it impossible for the party, accustomed to power, to carry on ignoring the concerns of the electorate.
I was in London when Tony Blair’s Labour Party suffered a bloody nose in the UK parliamentary elections of May 2005. But of course this scenario just as well describes how things played out on Election Day here in New York and across the United States. Only in New York the sky was gray and threatening rain.
Partly on the strength of his approval ratings, Mr. Blair forged ahead in Iraq, scorning the cautionary advice of some members of his own party and the vocal dissent of the majority of the British public. Voters felt left out of the decision-making process and determined to voice their ire. Yet they weren’t inspired by the opposition Tories, the conservative party that offered no opposition to Mr. Blair’s Iraq policy. Deserving or not, the Tories benefited from the anti-Labour backlash. So did smaller parties who offered stiffer resistance on Iraq but didn’t stand a chance of amassing a majority. The Liberal Democrats picked up seats as did the newly-formed Respect Party coalition, led by the polemical George Galloway, an ex-Labour member whose only platform issue seemed to be his abhorrence for the Iraq War.
In Britain the parliamentary elections determine who heads the government. Voters elect their districts’ Members of Parliament, and the leader of the party in the majority becomes (or remains) Prime Minister. Although many Brits would have cheered Mr. Blair’s eviction from Downing Street, the Tory leader, Michael Howard, was an even more dismal prospect. And he supported the war. Voters decided to leave Labour in power but teach Mr. Blair a lesson.
When the dust settled, Mr. Blair retained his office but with a much reduced majority. It did more than just give the Prime Minister an education in humility. It also put an end to the days when Mr. Blair could count on his party’s massive majority to push legislation through parliament virtually uncontested. He would now have to worry over the support of individual Labour MPs and even lobby support from other parties. In other words, he’d have to seek backing, almost ask permission, before acting. Call it checks and balances.
In the beginning, Americans were generally more supportive of the War than the British who largely opposed the policy of preemptive strike even before the first bursts of “Shock and Awe.” Perhaps that’s why it’s taken longer for Americans to serve up their punishment. Timing and the differences in the two countries’ political systems could have something to do with it as well.
American voters first had an opportunity to pass judgment on Mr. Bush’s presidency in the 2004 elections. But this was only a year and a half into the war, and many still held out hope for a positive outcome. September 11 was fresher in the mind, and the public wanted to believe that the war in Iraq was making them safer somehow. The specter of weapons of mass destruction remained. And alas, the Democrats didn’t offer an attractive alternative either in policy or politicians. John Kerry failed to articulate a clear vision. Nor did he inspire strong passions. Voters require at least one of the two.
After his 2004 victory, President Bush declared that he had earned political capital in that election, adding that he intended to spend it. After the inconclusive election that put him in the Oval Office in the first place, he felt vindicated to have been elected again, with a majority of the vote this time. He indulged in a little swagger.
Mr. Bush likes to divide people into two camps, those “with” him and those “against.” At some point, it seems he decided that the people who are with him are the only people who matter. Like Mr. Blair, he began to take power for granted.
Two years later Americans have made it clear that they’ve had enough, and they’ve taken it out on Republican candidates for national and state offices. As with Mr. Blair in the UK election, being affiliated with President Bush was a liability at the ballot box. Try as they may to distance themselves from their party’s leader, Republicans were voted out largely for their GOP membership.
President Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” took back the White House for the Republicans in 2000 just as Prime Minister Blair’s “New Labour” brought his party in from the wilderness in 1997. But in politics, you are only as popular as the last election says you are. Because of Iraq, both men will finish out their terms as lame ducks, with many in their parties anxiously awaiting their departures.
Republicans would do well now to heed the Labour Party’s present troubles. Even after the parliamentary elections, Labour remained the strongest party in Britain. The Tories were seen as the butt of all jokes and deemed completely unelectable in the foreseeable future. A year after the vote, it is Labour that is in disarray, and the Conservatives are tipped to take power in the next general election. But Labour has until 2009 or 2010 to try to erase the memories of their mistakes. The Republicans have just two short years.
tags: 2006 election, Congress, George W. Bush, Republicans, Democrats, Tony Blair, Labour, Tories, politics,Iraq War
posted by citizenjane at 9:22 AM
3 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
omg! what the hell is that ^ stuff about? i swear, you're never safe from spammers. damn them.
i voted libertarian
Post a Comment
<< Home