Furthermore,
although I'd like to see Republicans retake both chambers of the Congress, I
don't want it to happen in the upcoming
round of elections, which unlikely to happen anyway because of the 18-seat
disparity in the Senate. Recall what happened in the 1990's. The
best thing that could have happened was for Republicans to control the Senate,
the House of Representatives, and the Oval Office simultaneously for at least
four years. The second-best thing was that the Democrats would control
all three for the same period, and inevitably discredit themselves through
their inability or unwillingness to govern capably. The worst that could
have happened is what did happen:
Republicans gained a majority in each house of the Congress, and made
improvements that included the only kind about which people ultimately care (viz., strengthening of the economy),
but, because the average voter is unable to distinguish between something
effected by the President and something that merely happens during his term in
office, a Democrat usurped the credit. (The circumstances are somewhat different now; Obama is a stronger, though no better,
leader than Clinton, whose very status as a political cipher facilitated the
Republican legislative dynamism to which I referred in the previous sentence.)
Finally, it ought to be admitted that this is no occasion to go sing Yankee
Doodle Dandy. If it's true that, to quote Sen. Scott Brown,
"people aren't stupid" (I would say "benighted"), why did
they elect Obama and so forth to begin with?