“the comedown from the high of history-making” that Obama’s election represented

[Pirate Smile]

Obama and the high of history making

Speaking after reading from her new book at Politics and Prose Monday night, Salon writer Rebecca Traister proposed a novel theory of Democratic disaffection and disinterest.

Part of the enthusiasm gap between Republicans and Democrats heading into the midterm elections can be explained, she said, by “the comedown from the high of history-making” that Barack Obama’s election represented.

“It feels good to make history,” she noted, discussing the incredible passion that motivated Democratic voters during the 2008 contest — a passion detailed in her first book, “Big Girls Don’t Cry: The Election That Changed Everything for American Women,” just out from Free Press. That book is an account of the contest that included the first credible major-party female candidate, the first female GOP vice presidential nominee and the first African American major party nominee. But more than that, it is an emotional account, from within a liberal Democratic framework, of the debate over allegiance and identity that made the Democratic nominating fight so bruising for Democratic partisans.

Traister’s suggestion syncs with my own sense that some measure of that passion that lifted Obama into office has dissipated because its aims were cultural and historical, rather than purely policy oriented, and because voters drawn into the fray by these cultural and historical ambitions and hopes saw their aims accomplished the night Obama won election.

People were not dancing in the streets and squealing in their apartments for Obama’s health-care proposal that night. They were dancing because of what he represented — America as a place of such great freedom and opportunity that Americans were continually a surprise to themselves.

That’s what makes presidential elections more exciting than most congressional ones — they are about who we are as a nation and what our values are as much as they are about anyone’s detailed plan for paying for the latest prescription drug.

Obama’s presidency, on the other hand, has been, to a very great extent, about enacting an ambitious policy agenda. That’s just inherently less exciting to voters than the grand narrative he presented in 2008.

http://www.whorunsgov.com/politerati/uncategorized/obama-and-the-high-of-history-making/

Edit - I took out the "enthusiasm gap" part of the title because I'm not a fan of that mantra but I do think the column makes a good point about how the 2008 election was different. I doubt we will have another like it in my lifetime - well, hopefully we will for a woman President. I do think the "high" from the history making did lead to a comedown because actually policy changes aren't so quick and easy.

[The Magistrate]

1. This Gap Is A Weak Rede From Other Angles, Too,Ma'am

My attitude towards voting this year is not enthusiasm, but is grim duty, a surer motivation....

[Beetwasher]

2. Last Election We Stormed The Castle, This Year We're Beating Back The Hoardes

[PlanetBev]

6. You got that right

It feels like we're fighting the Vikings, Vandals, Mongols, Huns and every other medieval hoard out there.

It's like the "What's in your wallet?" crowd, but not as funny.

[Pirate Smile]

3. I don't like the "enthusiasm gap" crap so I took it out of my subject line but I do think the column

made a good point about coming back down to reality - and it was a reality of dealing with the multitude of disasters Bush left for his successor - an almost impossible job.

[Pirate Smile]

4. kick

[guruoo]

5. k&r nt

[zipplewrath]

7. close but not quite

There was a large portion of the electorate for who that's ALL they saw, or wanted, out of this presidency. They had no policy hopes. There was no specific changes they wanted. It may constitute a majority of his supporters. The problem is that there is no real depth in that support. They'll answer polls and say they are "pleased" with his performance. But it is to no real effect. They are contributing to their local congress critters campaign. They aren't volunteering for OFA.

However, those who did have specific hopes for particular changes have watched as they were ignored, changed, marginalized, or triangulated away, and for no real gain for which they could identify. And they aren't all "liberals". Many a moderate "independent" is pissed about the mandates, which is why the GOP feels free to attack that portion, in court actually. People of every political stripe were put off by the whole "Nebraska exemption" in the HCR debate in the Senate. And you have folks from George Will to Patty Sheehan confused about exactly what he is attempting to accomplish in Afghanistan.

His problem isn't that there were people who ONLY sought historical change. His problem is that there were so many who DIDN'T. They sought more.