In
trying to understand what is happening in the nation and
world, we all employ
narratives -- story lines that indicate where
things are going and what is
likely to happen next. We can check the
validity of these narratives by
observing whether events move in the
indicated direction. If so, the
narrative is confirmed. But if things
seem to be moving in an entirely
different direction, it's time to
discard the narrative and look for
another.
When Barack Obama took office, most Americans and
certainly
most of the press had a narrative in mind. Call it Narrative A.
The
financial crisis and the ensuing deep recession had removed
the
blinkers from voters' eyes and moved Americans away from reliance
on
markets and toward reliance on government.
The new
president's call for hope and change would be
followed by enactment of big
government policies -- a big-spending
stimulus package, government-led health
care reform, restrictions on
carbon emissions and the effective abolition of
the secret ballot in
unionization elections. The new president's powers of
persuasion would
sweep Republicans along and make for bipartisan
change.
It certainly seemed plausible. New Deal historians
had
taught us that economic collapse increases support for big
government.
Opponents of the Obama program seemed incoherent and
demoralized.
But Narrative A looks increasingly shaky. The
unions'
anti-secret ballot bill is going nowhere, and neither, it seems,
is
carbon emissions legislation. The stimulus package is widely
regarded
as a failure, and the Democrats' various health care bills are
not
winning majorities in polls. If anything, Americans are more leery
of
big government than they were a few years ago.
Moreover,
the balance of enthusiasm has shifted. The tea
parties and town halls have
shown that millions of Americans are
strongly opposed to big government
measures. The Obama e-mail lists
that brought in so much money and so many
volunteers in 2008 now seem
unable to get a few dozen people to a rally, and
Democratic
fundraising is alarmingly low for a party in
power.
So it may be time to advance a Narrative B. It
goes
something like this. George W. Bush's inability to produce progress
in
Baghdad and New Orleans, along with floundering by
congressional
Republicans, led voters to give Democrats majorities in
Congress in
2006 and the presidency in 2008. But the huge flow of dollars
designed
to staunch the financial crisis (TARP), finance bailouts and fund
the
stimulus package raised fears that government would crowd
out
private-sector growth.
In this narrative, Democrats' big
congressional majorities
owe more to perceived Republican incompetence and to
the $400 million
that labor unions poured into Democratic campaigns than to
any change
in fundamental attitudes toward the balance between markets
and
government.
Narrative B does a better job than Narrative
A of explaining
the unpopularity of the Democrats' big-government programs
and the
unwillingness of many Democratic officeholders, especially
those
facing voters in 2010, to support them. It does a better job
of
explaining the shift in the balance of enthusiasm from 2008 to
2009.
It still may be possible for Democrats to jam through
some
of their health care proposals, and tax rates are scheduled to go
up
when the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010. The Democrats may be able
to
make basic policy changes because of accidental advantages. In
the
framework of Narrative B, government-directed health insurance
and
vastly enhanced union power would be reactions to George W.
Bush's
inept handling of Iraq before the surge and his hapless response
to
Hurricane Katrina.
Narrative B doesn't explain all
current developments
satisfactorily. Voters still have a lingering distaste
for Republican
politicians and give higher (or less low) ratings to the
Democratic
than the Republican Party. Republican policy proposals, while
not
nonexistent as the Democrats charge, have not caught the
public's
attention and may prove no more popular than the Democrats'
health
insurance and cap-and-trade proposals. And Democratic proposals
may
turn out to be more popular than they are today.
But
overall Narrative B has done a better job so far of
explaining 2009 than
Narrative A. Which suggests that it's time that
fans of Narrative A who don't
like Narrative B to come up with
Narrative C.
Michael Barone
is senior political analyst for The
Washington Examiner. To find out more
about Michael Barone, and read
features by other Creators Syndicate writers
and cartoonists, visit
the Creators Syndicate Web page at
www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2009 THE WASHINGTON
EXAMINER
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
Michael Barone's Bio
Michael Barone is senior political analyst for The Washington Examiner. To find out more about Michael Barone, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
Posted
10-08-2009 12:29 PM
Link to this post: