By Doug Pinkham
Public Affairs Council President

November 4, 2010

If you're a winning candidate, the first thing you need to know is why you were elected. Did the voters like you or did they just hate the other guy? Did they agree with your stands on key issues? Or was your opponent too liberal or too conservative? Did you run a superior campaign? Or did you win because, let's face it, you got lucky. Either your opponent self-destructed or this was the year your party made a comeback.

These are important questions, yet many politicians don't seem to ask them. Most feel they were elected because (1) voters have total confidence in their leadership or (2) they represent a point of view that most people support - or ought to support.

Both of those reasons can be valid, but neither gives them a mandate to govern without being mindful of changing circumstances.

When Barack Obama was elected president by a large majority two years ago, he was gracious in his acceptance speech. "[While] the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight," he said, "we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress."

He certainly said all the right things. During the campaign, Obama was in sync with most Americans. Here is a snapshot of public opinion on key issues in 2008:

• 57% (including 64% of Republicans) favored the Wall Street bailout.
• 54% supported universal healthcare coverage.
• 71% said there was solid evidence of global warming.

But that was then - and "then" was a long time ago. The fact is, the president won largely because the public liked Obama; it wasn't because he had growing support for his agenda. 

As the economy sunk into a deep recession in 2008 and 2009 - just as Obama was taking office - his issue mandate eroded considerably. Many Americans began to oppose the Wall Street bailout and healthcare reform, and a rapidly declining number believed climate change was actually happening.

But rather than recalibrate, the president redoubled his determination to push an agenda that was losing momentum. As retiring Sen. Evan Bayh wrote this week in The New York Times:

It is clear that Democrats over-interpreted our mandate. Talk of a "political realignment" and a "new progressive era" proved wishful thinking. Exit polls in 2008 showed that 22 percent of voters identified themselves as liberals, 32 percent as conservatives and 44 percent as moderates. An electorate that is 76 percent moderate to conservative was not crying out for a move to the left.

Bayh goes on to give some cogent advice to Democrats as they lick their wounds this week. After telling them they need a new approach for reaching their goals, he reminds Democrats not to blame the voters. "They aren't stupid or addled by fear," writes Bayh. "They are skeptical about government efficacy, worried about the deficit and angry that Democrats placed other priorities above their main concern: economic growth." That's why, as Bayh points out, every policy must - for the time being - be viewed through a single prism: "Does it help the economy grow?"

For Republicans, it's clear the impressive results of the 2010 midterm elections present a mandate for change. The question is whether voters are expressing support for something, or just opposing what isn't working.

In his victory speech, presumptive Speaker of the House John Boehner was careful to temper his remarks, inviting the president to stand with Republicans as they face the nation's tough problems.

Yet by Wednesday morning, Boehner was already vowing to dismantle the nation's new healthcare law, which he called a "monstrosity." While many Republican voters would support that notion, support for repeal is not universal - especially when it comes to the law's most popular provisions.

Republicans have talked about rolling back other Obama achievements as well, or standing in the way of all future White House initiatives. Last week, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell made no effort to hide his motivation.  "The single most important thing we want to achieve," he said, "is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

But are undoing laws and embarrassing the president the real GOP mandate? Or is it simply to put the brakes on Washington spending and help the nation's economy recover? I'm guessing it might be the latter. Conservative David Frum has a similar warning for Republican leaders:

Now it's again a Republican turn, or partly a Republican turn. What do we have to offer? Tax cuts plus Medicare spending? More angry accusations? Investigations? Gridlock? Shutdowns? Impeachment? . . . Republicans have come to power in the midst of the worst economic crisis since World War II without an economic plan - that is, beyond preserving the tax cuts which failed to prevent the crisis in the first place.

If Republicans can show discipline managing the federal budget, pragmatism in crafting a legislative agenda and high-mindedness in working across party lines, they can capitalize on the new confidence voters have placed in them. But if they focus too much on pleasing the Tea Party Caucus, they will overreach - and they will suffer the same consequences in two years that the Democrats suffered this week.

As House Minority Whip Eric Cantor astutely pointed out to CNN: "This is a second chance for us. If we blow it again, we will be in the wilderness for a very long time. We have to deliver."

Now that's a mandate.

Comments? Email me at http://pac.org/contact/blog.