On Electoral Mandates
Jan 6, 2025 | 597 words | Politics
80-year-old James Carville is a veteran Democrat political operative from Louisiana who just published a little post-mortem on this past November’s tumultuous presidential election, in which he offers some tips on how his party can win back those all-important swing voters who recently strayed.
It is all good practical advice, but towards the end he indulges in what strikes me as a demonization of the opposition. He wants to see Democrats regain legislative power, because Republicans are a scourge upon the nation.
52-year-old Mike Johnson is a Republican congressman from Louisiana who just narrowly retained his position as Speaker of the House. After the close vote, during which two or three radical right-wing congressional hold-outs decided to support him at the last possible moment, Mr. Johnson spoke of getting on with the people’s business. He wants to implement President Trump’s America First agenda, replacing what he described as the outgoing administration’s America Last policies. The quote I heard went something like, “Those policies were a failure, and they need to be buried.”
I get that our two major political parties see things differently and have different priorities when it comes to legislation and tending to the common good. But why does the language we use to discuss these differences have to be so adversarial so much of the time?
This unwarranted combativeness expresses itself every time an election winner describes their triumph as a mandate, which is then put forth as a repudiation of everything the outgoing office-holder stood for.
But that is hardly ever the case. Landslide elections are few and far between these days. More often than not, things are split pretty much right down the middle.
This past November Donald Trump received 77,303,573 votes to Kamala Harris’ 75,019,257 votes. That translates into 49.9% of the vote for Trump, and 48.4% of the vote for Harris.
Here in Pennsylvania the Senate race was even tighter. Good guy three-term Democrat Senator Bob Casey, Jr. garnered 48.6% of the votes cast, while the Republican challenger Dave McCormick topped him with 48.8% of the vote.
With a race that close, it feels as if just enough people wanted to turn the page on the perfectly acceptable politician they were used to for the last 18 years, and give a new individual a shot behind the wheel. It almost boils down to a whim, which is why I am not quite as enamored of democracy and the “democratic process” as I am supposed to be.
The first rule of marketing is to differentiate what you are selling from what a competitor is also trying to sell. The objective is to tout the benefits and advantages of your product, without necessarily dragging your competitor’s product through the mud. In fact, it’s best if you can make a case for your product without mentioning the competition at all.
But human nature being what it is, politicians and their handlers and consultants often resort to broad caricatures of an opponent’s policy proscriptions. This is known as “going negative” in the trade, and it can be very effective in firing up the electorate and increasing voter turnout. It amounts to a cynical variation on the tried-and-true rule of broadcast journalism – if it bleeds, it leads. And so it goes, on and on.
I am convinced James Carville and Mike Johnson (and Donald Trump and Kamala Harris) both have the best interests of the country at heart. If only they could exert some added discipline when articulating their positions, so as to avoid painting the other side as being sent here from Hell.
Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr.
bobcavjr@gmail.com