An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

When is a Mandate Not a Mandate?

The answer would appear to be, when the mandate referee is Bob Novak.

The first Democratic Electoral College landslide in decades did not result in a tight race for control of Congress. […]

[Obama] may have opened the door to enactment of the long-deferred liberal agenda, but he neither received a broad mandate from the public nor the needed large congressional majorities.

Something smelled bad about this as soon as I read it, but fortunately, Ali Frick at Think Progress has already done the heavy lifting for us. Novak is singing a bit of a different tune now than he did four years ago.

Novak dismissed Democratic congressional gains, noting that they “fell several votes short of the 60-vote filibuster-proof Senate.” However, in 2004 — as President Bush crowed about his “political capital” — Novak didn’t hesitate to agree that Bush’s comparatively narrow victory was proof of a conservative mandate, in a CNN interview just days after the election:

Q: Bob Novak, is 51 percent of the vote really a mandate?

NOVAK: Of course it is. It’s a 3.5 million vote margin. But the people who are saying that it isn’t a mandate are the same people who were predicting that John Kerry would win. … So the people who say there’s not a mandate want the president, now that he’s won, to say, Oh, we’re going to accept the liberalism that the — that the voters rejected. But Mark, this is a conservative country, and it showed it on last Tuesday. [11/06/04]

Novak has never made any serious effort to portray himself as a nonpartisan observer of the political arena, so this type of about-face doesn’t come as a huge surprise. It may, however, be an early taste of the sort of coverage President Obama can expect from conservative critics no matter which way the winds blow.

NOTE: In response to early e-mail, yes I am fully aware of Novak’s current medical issues. I certainly hope that he recovers from them and prospers. At the same time, he has made the choice to continue publishing political opinions while dealing with that situation. When you make that choice, you don’t get a free pass on blatant hypocrisy just because you have a health problem.

  • shaun
    Amen, Jazz.

    In fact, I'll take this out a little further:

    Being stricken with a life-threatening illness changes many people. Think Lee Atwater. But Novak is likely to go to his grave not getting the joke. That it was on himself.
  • stevenw
    What you are missing out on by just doing number-crunching, is, that with all the things that Obama & the Dems had going for them plus what McCain & GOP had going against them, the bar for an Obama mandate is significantly higher than it was for Bush. Looked at that way, the vote tallies are sort of disappointing.
  • kritt11
    Novak is an old GOP warrior, partisan down to the last molecule of his being. Which in this case means delusional!
  • The way this country is right now, 45% is the floor for both parties nationally. You'll find strong leans regionally (NYC is very blue, your average county in Texas is very red), but partisans in either party will vote for a burlap sack filled with broken glass if it was listed for their party. So the mandate is measured by the degree to which you can get the independents to move to your side.

    EDIT: Or at least I remember Nate Silver saying 45% was the floor earlier this year. Dude, knows his stats.
  • AustinRoth
    It is a sweeping victory, and certainly within the range of what has been called a mandate in prior elections.

    There are two traps or caveats, though, for the Democrats.

    The first is determining WHAT mandate was given. That has been the usual reason for the new party in power to lose their 'mandate' quickly - a combination of misconstruing what policy changes the voters think they wanted a mandate to address, and overreaching and deciding that the mandate was obviously EVERYTHING the winning party wanted to do. The Gingrich mandate is probably the best example of that folly.

    The second is that they must remember that as low as Bush's approval ratings are, Congress has even lower ratings. They are starting from a huge whole. They will need to have some early successes and improve upon the overall image of Congress, or they will take the blame ultimately for any continued recession. It is not fair, bu tit is politics.

    Finally, I saw this quote from The Onion referenced on Instapundit, and there is a large grain of truth in it:

    "African-American man Barack Obama, 47, was given the least-desirable job in the entire country Tuesday when he was elected President of the United States of America. In his new high-stress, low-reward position, Obama will be charged with such tasks as completely overhauling the nation's broken-down economy, repairing the crumbling infrastructure, and generally having to please more than 300 million Americans and cater to their every whim on a daily basis. . . . The job comes with such intense scrutiny and so certain a guarantee of failure that only one other person even bothered applying for it. Said scholar and activist Mark L. Denton, 'It just goes to show you that, in this country, a black man still can't catch a break.'"
  • Marlowecan
    "Blatant hypocrisy?" Hahahahahahaha...

    Pull out the Wayback Machine, and dial back to 1984 and Ronald Reagan landslide victory over Mondale. Reagan won every state but one, with a margin of victory of 18% . . . dwarfing that of Barack Obama several fold.
    The editorial page of the New York Times declared that this was "not a mandate" in any way, shape or form. . . a theme it hammered past the inauguration.

    Indeed, there was a cottage industry among journalists and academics at the time, unanimously declaring Reagan lacked a mandate in both his elections.

    Here is an interesting book review " DOES REAGAN HAVE A MANDATE? " from 1981 from . . . wait for it . . . yes, the New York Times.

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=...

    Novak is simply being partisan.

    Of course, perhaps he is suffering from his brain tumor.

    If so, what is the excuse of the editors of the New York Times?
  • Marlowecan
    Janienedm: ". . . partisans in either party will vote for a burlap sack filled with broken glass if it was listed for their party."


    As the eminent philosophe and bon vivant Homer Simpson observed: "It's funny cause it's true."
  • The mandate is clear. Obama won platforming on a message of change, so obviously the mandate is for him to continue Republican policies.
  • Ricorun
    What good is declaring a mandate anyway? It seems to me things are as they are, despite the label applied. Bush declared a mandate after the 2004 elections too. Then seemed to spend his "political capital" in an extraordinarily short time to little effect, as I recall.

    Anyway, I hope Obama doesn't get cocky.
  • Harperbruce
    Looking at it from a purely mathematical standpoint, Obama doesn't have a "mandate." I'd call it that if the spread was at least 10% or better; Obama led by only about 6%. I don't think we can claim that Obama has this mysterious "mandate" any more than we insisted that Bush had a "mandate" after 2004, and that's my take at my own blog, unless we look at the electoral spread. If we did that back in 2004, then yes, Bush had a mandate as well.

    We can't have it both ways; we need to be consistent (grin).
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC