The Democratic Party took a real licking, or “Shellacking”, to borrow from Obama, in the November elections. It was not the tsunami the Republicans were for, but it was not far from it. Rather than reflect a revolution in American electorate attitudes, the election results are, to borrow from Charles Krauthamer, a return to “normal” - where the congressional map is “a sea of interior red, bordered by blue coasts and dotted by blue islands of ethnic/urban density” (red and blue refer to Republican and Democrats constituencies respectively in this context). It reversed a trend that started in 2006 and continued in 2008, of the Democrats gaining control of the Congress. The elections practically wiped out all the electoral gains of the Democrats in the two previous elections. The Republicans hold now a solid majority in the House and the Democrats’ majority in the Senate has shrunk to 51 plus two independents whose votes cannot be automatically counted on.

Losing some of its congressional representation by the ruling party in mid term elections is a common phenomenon. Losing control of the Congress is less common. A rout on the present scale - 63 members of the house and 6 senators, is almost unheard of. The last time it happened was 72 years ago - in 1938.

The results of the elections are even more striking considering that two years ago, in the aftermath of Obama’s sensational accomplishment of becoming the first black occupant of the White House, the punditocracy was unanimous in writing off the chances of the Republicans to stage a come back in the foreseeable future. The GOP was doomed to remain “for generations” the minority party. The Democratic party leadership, who apparently believed that to be the case, acted as if the country political system has turned into a one party system. As the results of last November showed, the news about the demise of the Republican party were, to borrow from Mark Twain, exaggerated.

A normal reaction to such an electoral setback, which can be rightly referred to as a political earthquake, would be some soul searching among the leadership of the losing side as to what went wrong. Failure to do so will make it difficult, maybe even impossible, to stem the trend. From published reactions of the President and his cohorts it does not appear that a serious examination of the causes is under way at present. Rather, a whole spectrum of excuses, ranging from the naive to the ludicrous is offered to “explain” the outcome of the elections. Analyzing these attempts of the Democrats to rationalize their electoral failure is beyond the scope of this article. Suffice it to say that from the perspective of the Democratic leadership they did not fail, rather it was the voting public who was at fault for failing to “understand” the merits of Obama’s agenda. A mere misunderstanding, not something to be really concerned about. The Democrats have now two years to make the public “see the light” and rectify the misunderstanding or “misperception”, to use Obama’s words.

In the next two years Obama will be facing a new reality - having to work with a hostile congress. This is a reality with which he has little experience. In the next two years Obama will have to choose between two courses of action. He can opt for a “business as usual” approach and continue to push his agenda in spite of having lost the majority in Congress or alternatively, he can modify his antagonistic approach and go for genuine bipartisanship.

Obama is not the first President who had to contend with a hostile legislature (It is worth noting that a hostile Congress is not necessarily one controlled by the opposing party. More often than not Presidents faced more difficulties from a Congress controlled by their own party). The secret of success of many previous Presidents was their ability and readiness to work with the Congress regardless of which party was in control.

If Obama’s first two years in the White House are any indication, the antagonistic course of action is more likely to happen. Compromise and readiness to listen to the other side were definitely not the modus operandi of Obama in the past. If that will continue to be the case, we are facing a legislative gridlock in the coming two years. However, we are dealing with politics where one can never say “never”. As Bismark has said “Politics Is the Art of the Possible”. Obama may yet surprise his detractors and manage to find common ground with a Republican controlled Congress. It is worth noting here that many among Obama’s supporters are not enthusiastic about the idea of bipartisanship (to put it mildly).

President Clinton faced a similar situation in 1994, albeit on a smaller scale. Clinton had no difficulty to adapt to the new reality, made an impressive come back, and won a second term in 1996 with ease. The Democrats build their hopes on the Clinton precedent and expect 2012 to be a repeat of 1996.

Making historical analogies is always risky, because history never repeats itself in exactly the same way. Obama is no Clinton. Clinton was a pragmatic politician with a sound grasp of reality and awareness of his limitations. Obama on the other hand features a grandiose sense of self. His miscalculating of his abilities and potential is a direct result of fantasies of his greatness. His view of the world is narrow and one dimensional and he lacks the ability to see things as they appear from the other side’s perspective. Obama is a man of unusual arrogance and he is thin skinned to boot. He is accustomed to worshipful treatment by those around him, and when things don’t go his way, he is quick to lose control. A typical example is the press conference (Dec 7) following the compromise he had reached with the Republicans on the Bush tax cuts. Obama lashed at the Republican party - he referred to them metaphorically as “hostage taking terrorists”. Such an attitude does not hold much promise for the prospects of a long term bipartisanship.

In politics two years are practically an eternity. Much can happen and any prediction, no matter how logical it appears at the time, can turn out to be ludicrous. I’ll proceed to discuss the 2012 elections with this caveat in mind.

The major concern of the voters behind the Democratic electoral debacle last November was the Health Care reform, ObamaCare, with the exceptionally high unemployment rate a close second. The Democratic party leadership, deluding itself that it was no more than a “Republican” incitement carried out by “extremists”, failed to come up with an adequate response. Futile efforts to throw the blame at Bush back fired since in practically all polls comparing Obama’s performance with that of his predecessor Obama did not do so well.

The two major issues listed will continue to dominate the political scene during the two coming years. In the absence of a major reversal of the present trends of the economy, it is unlikely that there will be a significant reduction of the unemployment level. The deal that Obama reached with Republicans about extending the Bush tax cuts and the unemployment benefits provides a short term relief but it is doubtful whether it will put the economy back on track. As for ObamaCare, the Republicans, smelling a sure winner, will keep harping on it. Even with the best intentions regarding bipartisanship. Obama will find it very difficult to compromise on an issue which he rightly considers to be the major achievement of his so far.

Many Americans regard the elections of the President as the essence of democracy and tend to disregard the mid term elections. This is true in particular among young people and minorities, two groups whose contribution to Obama‘s success in 2008 was decisive. The voter demography in 2012 will probably resemble that of 2008 more than that of 2010 and thus, any attempt to assess what’s about to happen in 2012 has to account for this fact. Also one should remember that it is very common for American voters to split their votes - vote for one party to the White House and for the other party to the Congress.

23 Democratic senators, including the 2 independents, are up for re-election in 2012. All are tainted by having voted for ObamaCare. Moreover, at least half represent states which are essentially Republican (States where McCain won in 2008). The Republicans need a gain of only four seats in the Senate to become a majority. Given the present attitude of the American public, it is a safe bet to assume that the Republicans will make it. As for the house, the likelihood of the Democrats reversing the 2010 results looks grim. The ObamaCare effect is working there as well.

The Presidential elections are a different story. Any one challenging an incumbent is always at a disadvantage, even when the incumbent is not a success story. A lot depends on the personalities. Right now there is no Republican candidate that appears to pose a real challenge to Obama. Unless the Republicans find some one whose attractiveness to the masses is on a par with Obama’s personal popularity they have no chance. The lackluster of Bob Dole was a major contributor to Clinton’s victory in 1996.

To conclude, a few words about what can be expected to happen in the Israeli Arab conflict.

Obama toned down his hostility during the months that preceded the elections, but it was mainly lip service. His basic attitude remains the same, and he is still entrenched in the belief that the sole obstacle to resolving the conflict is Israel’s intransigence. As a parenthetical remark, the mythical power of the Jewish vote is grossly overestimated. It is true that in some congressional districts the Jewish votes can sway the results especially when the races are close, but on National and on States scales the Jews are a small and insignificant minority far behind the Blacks and/or the Hispanics.

After close to two years, Obama appears to have realized that bullying Israel was counter productive. The term “appears” is not accidental because it is not at all obvious that Obama is aware that the present impasse is his own doing. Even if he were aware of it, it is not his style to take responsibility for such gaffes. It is customary to say “better late than never”, but in the present context Obama’s about face has probably arrived too late to do any good. Obama essentially forced the Palestinian leadership to adopt a no compromise stand on the settlements issue, thereby promoting the least relevant issue in the conflict into the central item of contention.

Obama is not a man to give up easily. As in the past (e.g., ObamaCare), what may appear as a major strategy change may be only a tactical move. Always fixated on the idea that he has what it takes to accomplish what previous administrations failed to do, Obama will now look for ways to bypass the Middle East impasse. State Secretary Hilary Clinton said so much at a Mideast policy seminar sponsored by the Brookings Institution think tank (Dec. 11), where she stated “We will redouble our regional diplomacy. When one way is blocked, we will seek another.” To which she added “The United States will not be a passive participant.” Since the US role so far was anything but “passive”, it is a good question what exactly the Secretary of State had in mind.

I may be seeing ghosts, but in the past there were persistent rumors about the US meddling in Israeli politics with the goal of engineering a “regime change”, whereby a new government, more pliable to Obama’s whims, will be formed in Jerusalem. The news of Ms. Clinton conferring in Washington with the leader of the major opposition party in Israel may well hint at a conspiracy in process.

The present article is a somewhat modified version of an article which appeared earlier in Hebrew in the Mideast Forum (http://www.mideast.co.il/p-2_a-366/)