On the Election

As noted in a previous post, I was in Europe for the previous election—the 3^rd time in the past 4 national elections that I’ve been outside the country, and it’s always interesting; I was living in London for the 2000 election. When I left for work the morning after the election, the papers said “Gore Wins”. When, 20 minutes later, I was passing the final newsstand before I walked into the office, the paper said, “Bush Wins.” And when I went to lunch, the headline was “Recount.” I still have all 3 papers—and they’re fun to flip through from time to time.

In the 6 years since, Bush has enjoyed a Republican congress, and I could not be happier to see that change. Not because I am a leftist (I’m a fiscal conservative, social moderate/leaning left, and think the government has no place in moral issues, though I am quite conservative on that scale), but because single party governance is a recipe for disaster. I present Exhibit A: the last 6 years. Anyone who thinks the past 6 years has been successful may as well have their head in the sand. We’re at war on a premise that wasn’t the case, the economy is slowing (previously fueled largely by an overzealous Fed in the early decade—I realize this is not Bush’s influence anyway), and the government is the largest it has ever been. We spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined (or something obscene like that) when we’re fighting an asymmetric war—the only thing Rumsfeld got right was that we needed a new kind of military that could fight non-national entities; the idea was right, the execution left a little to be desired.

So—now we have a Democratic congress and a Republican executive. Nothing could be better. The powers that be in DC work more efficiently when that’s the case, and it’s what the “Founders” envisioned—hence all the checks and balances discourse. We’ve seen how far we run amok when one party governs (goes both ways).