President Barack Obama has, in many ways, been a victim of his own success. Eight divisive years of the G.W. Bush administration, Obama’s embodiment as the symbol of change, and the weight of his talent and personality all converged to create a wave election in 2008. The wave brought a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives, a filibuster-proof Senate and elevation of the most liberal member of the Senate to Commander-in-Chief. (In 2007, the National Journal ranked Barak Obama more liberal than self-avowed socialist Bernie Sanders of Vermont.)
The Democratic control of the Executive and Legislative Branches forced no compromise with the minority Republicans, and Democrats veered as far left as the most conservative amongst them would allow. Passed quickly and along party lines was the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, a massive Keynesian stimulus bill that injected $787 billion into the economy.
The majority would then turn to a much pined for item, first proposed in the Progressive Era–national health care. The issue proved to be extremely polarizing, and Democrats would spend an exorbitant amount of time and political capital ushering through legislation. As deadlines were set and passed, Democrats were hammered at Town Hall Meetings, which provided sensational images that were played up in the media.
By the time the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was passed, the left was disappointed and disillusioned, the right livid and energized to vote. The Tea Party was founded on fiscal conservatism, and the seemingly spendthrift President provided a strong contrast in which they won converts.
At a time in which liberal economists argue that the economy needs additional stimulus, the financial crisis in Greece has helped to bring austerity measures to Europe. Austerity, the policy of cutting deficits, lowering government spending, and reducing public services, typically occurs when nations are more afraid of debt and deficits than weakness in their economies.
If the Republican Party manages to win even the House, the country can expect moderation in fiscal policy. For the first time President Obama and the Democrats and the Tea Party led Republican party will have to find consensus if the Congress is to avoid gridlock. The U.S. economy is growing and the post-election momentum will be towards deficit reduction.
Gone are the days in which Democrats could pass legislation along party lines; where the President could hold photo op meetings with Republicans when the legislation at debate had already been written; and he could say that any unpopular policy decisions were voter mandates.
Republicans will now have a seat at the table. They will have the filibuster in the Senate, and a new nuclear option: a federal shutdown of government by failing to pass the budget bill; though it’s unlikely they’d use it, as the 1995 federal government shutdown by Newt Gingrich proved to be a boon for Democrats.
Barak Obama may find solace in the parallels to the 1990s: Bill Clinton’s moderation after losing ground in the 1994 mid-term paved the way to his reelection, a balanced budget, and the economic boom of the late ’90s. The public tends to like the legislative and executive branches occupied by opposite parties, which may improve the electorate’s general pessimism; and, for the first time, President Obama will have a viable entity to blame for legislative failures: the Republican Party.