This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon, Nov. 3, 2010 - How might we reconcile the apparently opposite messages of the last two elections? The day after yet another watershed shift in American politics, that question is worth considering as the country wakes up from the campaign to face many of the same problems that bedeviled us two years ago.
One obvious interpretation of the results is that Americans have rejected President Barack Obama and the Democrats and want to reverse course. This is a reasonable conclusion. But it raises a question about the reasonableness of the electorate.
Did voters really expect that problems like health care and the recession and the caustic nature of politics - problems that were decades in the making - would be solved in two years? Even in our attention deficit, instant gratification culture, I doubt it.
So what else might be going on? Two facts about the results suggest some consistency behind the apparent contradiction in the mood of the voters.
First, frustration played a big role. Both this year and two years ago, voters stewed about the disastrous economy and the ineptitude of politicians in solving real problems. Obama tapped that feeling with a message of hope. Tea party enthusiasists emphasized anger and fear. Both strategies were effective in sweeping incumbents from office.
A second fact that might explain some consistency in voter attitudes is the importance of turnout. Those who stayed home Tuesday in some ways played as big a role as those who voted.
As NPR political analyst Ron Elving noted Wednesday morning, the outcome didn't just mean that some voters had changed their minds about Obama. Rather, the electorate that swept Republicans into office Tuesday was not the same electorate that swept them out two years ago. For example, Elving noted, younger voters outpolled oldsters two years ago. Not this time.
With negative ads flying and the economy struggling, it's easy to see why some voters decide they'd rather not dignify any candidate with their support. But refusing to choose the lesser of two evils has consequences.
One longterm consequence of a constantly shifting electorate is that nobody's ideas get the time they need to demonstrate whether they will work. That's a recipe for disaster and disillusionment that transcends ideology.
Last weekend at the Online News Association, a representative of the new hyperlocal online news site TBD said he didn't care whether their work resulted in more voters turning out. They just want people to turn to TBD when they hear a siren and wonder what's going on.
That philosophy couldn't be more opposite from how we feel at the Beacon, where we're not ashamed to say we care about the civic health of the community that is our home. We think good journalism can fuel better civic engagement and both are important in solving the difficult problems we face.