Here's some interesting insight...

I read this article this morning from the UK, and found it rather refreshing in its perspective.

This guy (Michael Barone) has a very clear and understandable historical perspective. He compares the popularity of Obama's message as reflected in his election numbers to that of FDR and LBJ (the only two modern Democratic Presidents who won by a larger margin of victory than Obama did), but uses the current mood of anti-Democratic opinion to show that the "experiment" in progressive policies has failed utterly.

Significant losses for the Party in the White House during the midterm elections are fairly common place. Nearly every President has seen them, especially in the House, with the largest and most impacting losses of the modern era happening in 1986, 1994, and 2006. I think Mr. Barone is right, though, and this cycle is not simply another bump-in-the-road for the Dems. This is America voicing its opinion on failed policy.

His comparing the health care reform legislation to the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 is a good one. Few in America had any idea what was in the bills that went to the floors of Congress, and it wasn't even published until it was signed into law (which is completely contrary to the promise of "transparency" that Obama made during his run for office). It has been seen as government working in spite of the people's will rather than in the name of the people... and much can be said in the comparison to the 1854 Act which directly contributed to the Civil War in 1861. Health care reform and the manner in which it became law is the best and biggest example of liberal and progressive elitism in America, where the elected officials do not feel the voting public is "smart enough" to make the choices... so the choices are made for them, instead of by them.

I also like the comparisons to FDR and New Deal (yes, those dreaded words appear again...). Mr. Barone makes the case that New Deal might have COST the Dems and FDR their place in power by 1940... had war not broken out across Europe and the Pacific, prompting America to re-elect the "unflappable" President who simply didn't bend, no matter how strong the wind in his face. I have no problem with this view, and can even see myself defending it. By 1938, the Dems had lost control of Congress and popular opinion was definitely turning away from large budgetary spending and moving towards lower taxes. Could the case be made that in 1932, the public was calling for a "government fix" and it was delivered in the first four years, but became burdensome and unwelcome after eight? To argue that the "Three Rs" had an immediate impact seems silly, but the comparison doesn't carry into the Great Recession, does it? There was no immediate "relief" from fiscal burdens within the stimulus bill, and the "recovery" promised was counter to almost everything Obama had promised prior to his election. "Reform" has been seen to be something the DNC manages behind closed doors with no transparency at all... and thus becomes antithetical to the entire "Hope and Change" promise that Obama ran on.

Nothing about the Obama Administration has been "fiscally sound" by any stretch of the imagination, and the percentage of government spending as a portion of GDP is so far above what even FDR managed as to remove the comparison altogether. In addition to that, it now seems like a uniform, across-the-board increase in all our income tax rates is inevitable... and FDR at the very least knew enough not to promise lower taxes (or even the same tax rate) in light of what he intended to do. He raised the rates across the board... and told everyone that was going to happen. I'm not defending the move, only stating a fact. Compare that with the "promise" that the average American taxpayer wouldn't see his taxes increase by even "one dime" from Obama... and tell me the analogy stands.