Vox populi — the voice of the people — was uttered Nov. 4. But what did they say, and what will President-elect Obama and the Congress do based on that voice? All we know for certain about the first question is that about 66 million people cast their votes for Obama, and about 58 million cast their votes for McCain. Interpreting why they voted that way will be the first subject of contention. From all across the political, ideological and interest group spectra, there will be fierce claims that the election proved this or that. For Obama, this is an exercise in claiming he now has a mandate for (fill in the blank). For the losers, it will be claimed that in voting down McCain, the public did not oppose this or that.
Now, if you can make the case that the people's vote endorses your position, then you assert that vox populi, vox dei (the voice of the people is the voice of God).
If you are on the losing side, then you may find convincing the advice of Alcuin of York, the great English scholar and top adviser to Charlemagne: "Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, Vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit." ("And those people should not be listened to who keep saying the voice of the people is the voice of God, because the riotousness of the crowd is always very close to madness.")
But beyond the cynicism and preposterous spin involved in this exercise of "mandate, mandate, who has the mandate?" is a very serious business. For both the winners and the losers, the greatest danger is that they come to believe their own spin. Shortly after the election, I was in a radio show debate, and my liberal interlocutor asserted that the vote for Obama proved that the public finally had rejected "Reaganism" — from free, deregulated markets to all those traditional and religious cultural arguments that Republicans "have been using to confuse the people."
I can only hope that Obama and his team assume that his 53-46 percent win at a moment of calamitous economic news and a vastly unpopular president constituted a rejection of every non-leftist impulse in the public. It is revealing that the exit polling disclosed that the public self-identified itself as 44 percent moderate, 34 percent conservative and 22 percent liberal, which was statistically identical (45-34-21) to the numbers after Bush's 2004 victory. Moreover, the fact that 20 percent of self-identified conservatives voted for Obama — or 6.8 percent of the electorate — shows that if McCain had held all the self-identified conservatives, he would have won the popular vote.
No one can know for sure why any of the approximately 124 million voters voted the way they did.
Obviously, there were some conservatives who voted for a liberal. Maybe they were punishing the Republicans. Maybe they just admired Obama as a man. Maybe they liked his tax cut promises (though not his position on abortion). Likewise, there were some liberal Hillary supporters who voted for McCain just because they didn't like the way Obama treated their heroine.
But if the Obama team is susceptible to over-interpreting their mandate (as most winners do), the Republicans run the risk of underestimating what forces have been unleashed by this election — taking undue comfort in the fact that the ideological center of gravity of the electorate does not appear to have moved leftward in this election.
Consider that in 1980, when Ronald Reagan won his first presidential election, the public was self-identified as 46 percent moderate, 28 percent conservative and 17 percent liberal. But by the 1984 Reagan re-election, the public had shifted to 42 percent moderate, 33 percent conservative and 16 percent liberal — a statistically significant shift to the right. In those four years, Reagan had persuaded 5 percent of the electorate to move largely from moderate to conservative. And that 5 percent has stayed conservative for 24 years, right through the 2008 election. It is that 5 percent that has made America a center-right country rather than a centrist country — allowing a fairly conservative Republican Party to win congressional and presidential elections most of the time.
That is why it is so vital for both the Republican Party and a newly aroused conservative movement to work feverishly to make the case to the broadest possible public for our right-of-center views during the next four years. Obama has not made his case yet. Just as Reagan won in 1980 in part because a lot of moderates were tired of Carter — double-digit interest rates, stagflation, Soviets in Afghanistan, Iranian hostage crisis — so a lot of moderates voted for Obama because of the housing market crash, financial crisis, drop in 401(k) account values, and two wars.
Obama will try to convert those temporary moderate and conservative votes of his into permanent liberal and moderate voters — just as Reagan did in reverse between 1980 and 1984. If we conservatives can make our case, the election of 2008 will be a blip, just a kick-the-bums-out election. If Obama makes his case, he may have moved the center of political gravity to the left for a generation. Every conservative man and woman, to battle stations.
Tony Blankley is executive vice president of Edelman public relations in Washington. E-mail him at TonyBlankley@gmail.com. To find out more about Tony Blankley and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.

|
 |
Comments
|
5 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
The "newly aroused conservative movement"??? What "conservatives" are you talking about? I guess you don't mean the folks who believe in conserving the environment, stopping global warming, not spending money we don't have on unnecessary wars, not letting Wall Street run wild with the latest Ponzi scheme, and getting government out of the business of ruling us in how to make decisions in our personal lives like whether or not to use birth control or have an abortion. Or maybe you do. Maybe you mean all the folks who voted for Obama.
Message for you, Blankley, you dope. You right wingers are ANYTHING BUT conservatives. You've been squatting on that moniker for far too long, about as long as you've been scorning folks who use their gray matter a little as being "liberals." You are all just a bunch of me-first, get-the-money-now low talkers who make sport of ridiculing education and those who have it. Your time has passed. Hope your kids got a better education than you did. They're going to need it.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Masako
Tue Nov 11, 2008 10:58 PM
|
|
|
|
Sir;... Just between you and me, if anything would fit, the one thing you can take from this election is that: When republicans don't have anything to vote for except more failure, they stay home as well as democrats do... There was not more people that voted by percentage... New voters, and first time voter went Obama; but many who could not stomach voting for Mr. Obama could not bring themselves to vote... I would say: Time for some new ideas or some republican success the people can support, because if Mr. Obama works for folks, it will be hard for them to say no to him next time... It may gall the republicans in government right to death, but rather be seen as resisting his efforts which might hurt them badly, they should give him all the rope he needs to hang himself... I don't think he will... But I do think the people have had enough of failed government, and the fact is, government has not yet failed as it may well; and if it should, such terms as republican and democrat will soon become meaningless....Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #2
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Wed Nov 12, 2008 8:55 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: Masako;... Sir, this is a land born out of revolution, and the only true conservative value and movement is bent on revolution, which is to say: for Liberty and Justice for all, which has never been fully accepted, and discarded often for wealth and power, but still, after all, subversive, dangerous, and revolutionary... When reactionaries call themselves conservative it is to dominate the dialogue, to turn it their way with wrong terms; so remember what Rousseau said: before you talk with me, define your terms... (my paraphrase from memory)... We must see the terms these so called conservatives use in action... Their words do have meaning, but those meanings are warped beyond belief... It is a fact that most use words to communicate, and all the rest use them to miscommunicate, to lie, to waste lives and the time that lives are made of... So the reactionaries call themselves conservative because we are all conservative, and they know it... We all try to hold onto the best of the past and carry it into the future... But we all must surrender something of the past to gain tomorrow... We all know that no matter how pleasant was the past in the glow of memory that none but the dead live there, and that is the price we must pay as individuals and as a nation to live in the past; -to give up our lives, our future, and all our hopes and dreams... Life is change... Life is adaptation... Life is the relationship we have with each other, and we cannot lose all that to hang onto a glorified past that never was... Think of what it took for people to let go of the old country and sail for the new land... The new land we need today is beneath our feet waiting for us to turn it into a land of liberty...Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #3
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Wed Nov 12, 2008 9:54 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: Masako;..Sir, Just a correction... Voltaire said: "If you would converse with me, define your terms."... I don't know why I confuse those two... The one was a weasle and the other liked to expose himself; so I don't know that I could call either one friends if transported to their day... And while the statement above makes sense; in fact, we begin nearly every conversation with a definition of terms, and end with a definition of terms... It is just very difficult to talk with anyone whose terms have the strength and reliablity of jello.. Best to ya...Sweeney
Comment: #4
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:08 AM
|
|
|
|
"Consider that in 1980, when Ronald Reagan won his first presidential election, the public was self-identified as 46 percent moderate, 28 percent conservative and 17 percent liberal. But by the 1984 Reagan re-election, the public had shifted to 42 percent moderate, 33 percent conservative and 16 percent liberal — a statistically significant shift to the right. In those four years, Reagan had persuaded 5 percent of the electorate to move largely from moderate to conservative."
I wonder how much of this so-called identity shift is purely semantic in nature, i.e. what beliefs define conservative or moderate now versus then. I, for one, believe America (and most countries) to be centrist in nature. And, Tony, I believe the current strain of American conservatism has clearly demonstrated its self-interested greed and intellectual shallowness for some time now. It is time for different stategies and tactics, ones that consider and advocate for all people, most especially those masses who find themselves deprived of power and wealth.
Comment: #5
Posted by: Christopher L. Easterday
Fri Nov 14, 2008 5:17 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|