Harry's Gang: So-called voter mandates are subject to interpretation

While the latest election was pretty decisive (about 51 percent for Biden, 47.3 percent for Trump), the fact remains that nearly half the voters preferred the Republican candidate over the eventual winner. That’s not insignificant and can hardly be called a “mandate” by the winner.

But of course, people do call it a mandate. “The people have spoken,” they say, forgetting that nearly half the other people spoke, too.

Grandpa Newby used to say that more people vote against a candidate than vote for a candidate, meaning that people vote for the other guy because they can’t stomach voting for the first guy. I’ve been watching this phenomenon for years: roughly a third of the voters will vote for the “other guy” even when that candidate isn’t a serious contender. Put “Al Bundy” on the ballot and a third of the people will vote for him. Even a popular president like Ronald Reagan got only 58.6 percent of the vote, an impressive number, but 37.5 million people still voted for Mondale to Reagan’s 54.4 million. Clearly, there are quite a few Americans who feel Biden does not have a mandate from the people.

President George W. Bush announced after his second win that he had earned political capital and that he intended to spend it. A clever phrase, certainly, but it sounds like he planned to completely ignore the wants and needs of the 59 million people who preferred John Kerry’s politics.

Bush did spend some of that capital but, thankfully, wasn’t successful in privatizing Social Security. Can you imagine the disasters for people who could have lost all their retirement funds in the several stock market crashes we’ve seen in the past couple decades? Still, even with Republican control of both the House and the Senate for four years while Bush was president, substantial Republican-based policy wasn’t enacted. Bush wasn’t particularly successful at “shaking things up” but did a pretty good job of running the country, which is actually a better result. Major changes are disruptive. Even when Bush spent his political capital, things didn’t change all that much.

Along came Barack Obama, seemingly unstoppable in his quest for the presidency, winning 52.9 percent to McCain’s 45.7 percent. He had been a U.S. Senator for only about four years before he became president, a little light on experience and in over his head for the first few years but getting a lot done, with the help of Democrats who held both the House and the Senate for the first two years. Major initiatives such as Dodd-Frank (reforming financial institutions after multiple collapses led to the Great Recession), the Recovery Act to stimulate the economy after the recession, and the Affordable Care Act ( i.e., Obamacare) were all passed in Obama’s first term. But I doubt Obama would have been so successful in his first two years if he hadn’t had the financial crisis —big problems often take big solutions. If Obama had inherited a decent economy, I’m not sure even Obamacare would have passed. As it is, Obamacare had a lot of problems, and still needs substantial tweaking before it’s truly effective.

But we know Obama’s “mandate” really ticked off quite a few moderates, who then voted in a whole crew of new Republicans in the first midterm election, gaining control of the House. The people spoke again, I guess, telling Obama that he did too much, too fast.

So, even with a mandate, it’s hard to get a lot of things done.

Believe it or not, that’s a good thing. We don’t want wild swings every time a new president is elected. We want stability, and predictability. For example, you’re not likely to buy a nice house with a 30-year mortgage if you are not confident your job will still be around after the next election. Similarly, if every new president makes huge, substantial changes to the way we operate our country, no one will invest in long-term economic growth. No factories, no shopping developments, certainly no pipelines. Can you imagine Sappi closing down every four years to ride out a wild change in the White House? Our community would be devastated.

Joe Biden has claimed he’ll be a president for all Americans, even those that didn’t vote for him. I believe him. George W. Bush said the same thing. In his own way, while I wasn’t pleased with Bush’s more divisive policies, he mostly kept his word. I suspect many Republicans will not like Biden’s $15 minimum wage or his stimulus package. But don’t expect wild swings in policy after Jan. 20. Just as it should be.

Pete Radosevich is the publisher of the Pine Knot News and an attorney in Esko who will host the talk show Harry’s Gang on CAT-7 again soon. His opinions are his own. Contact him at [email protected].