A Restless Electorate: Temporary Anger or Long-Term Shift?  An Evening with Politico editor David Mark

By Stuart Varvel

 

Return to the Events index page

---

The American electorate is mad.  This is, according to David Mark of the American daily Politico, the fundamental reason why the electorate skewed so heavily on the side of Republicans in the recent American midterm elections.  Normally accustomed to asking the questions to American government officials, Mark found himself on the other side of the microphone at a recent discussion for the Bruno Kreisky Forum in Vienna.

The event was hosted by the U.S. Embassy alongside the Kreisky Forum for International Dialogue and was opened by U.S. Ambassador to Austria William Eacho III.  Discussing his own experience with the publication Politico, he mentioned its increasing influence on Washington, D.C. political culture and the online model that the daily utilizes.

By emphasizing online journalism in favor of print publication, Politico has also gained relevance in Washington, D.C. with a combination of large pockets and innovation.  The founders began by hiring reputable reporters and editors from other prominent publications, such as the New York Times, Congressional Quarterly and the Washington Post and incentivized being the first to break big news each morning.

After proceeding to the microphone, David Mark displayed the swagger and salesmanship one would expect from a journalist of a Washington bureau.  His speech was quick and clear as he began discussing why the midterm elections had resulted in a clear Republican victory in state houses, governorships, and the House of Representatives.

First: a respite. "It was a rough and tumble midterm election and its been a wild last five or six weeks," Mark explained, "it's good to be away from it."  

Perhaps that was a bit disingenuous though, as Mark is accustomed to covering withering election language.  Now a senior editor at Politico and Politico.com, he is a former reporter on Capitol Hill for Congressional Quarterly and author of the acclaimed, Going Dirty: The Art of Negative Campaigning, a survey of the history of negative campaign tactics in American politics.

Mark explained that the history of midterm losses for American Presidents was not abnormal.  From President Grover Clevelands historic loss of 130 seats in the House of Representatives to Republicans to President Bill Clintons loss of the House to Republicans for the first time in fifty years, the seismic nature of midterm elections can be a signal to a governing President, Mark argued.

Akin to President George Bushs remarks that the 2006 midterm elections were a thumping for his party, President Obama similarly labeled this election night a schellacking.  Mark mentioned the figure that 22% of House seats changed hands this election and that there are now 14 new Senators from both parties being sent to Congress this year.  

"Getting some fresh blood in there is good, I think," Mark opined.

He also asserted that besides the economy, another reason for the sizeable midterm loss was the handling of the health care bill, signed by President Obama following a lengthy and messy legislative process.  

"Generally, there are increasing amounts of self-titled independents in America," Mark explained, "as there are about 20% of Americans who strongly identify with Republicans and about the same amount for Democrats, about 40% are what we call Persuadables."  Mark continued, "There's a chance that in 2013 or 2014, when the full benefits of the health care legislation kick in, perhaps it will become more popular. "

During the recent elections, however, his exit poll numbers suggested the opposite.

When the Tea Party was mentioned, there was an audience-wide reaction of ears perking up.  Popular usage of the Tea Party Movement is a moniker Mark prefers not to use as it refers to the over-arching theme of dissatisfied voters: "It was popular though, for right-wingers in the Republican party to co-opt the attractive name of Tea Partier, but thats only because it is trendy at the moment."

Mark also discussed the recent findings of the National Commission of Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, also known as the Debt Commission.  The Commission found that drastic cuts would be required in mainstay American entitlement programs and defense in order for the deficit to be reduced.  Moreover, higher taxes would have to be imposed.  

Mark said that in order for any serious discussion to take place about reducing the deficit, that Americans would have to be more open-minded about reforms.  

"Americans tend not to worry about themselves, but worry about the other guy."

He also contended that Americans tend to have more of an aspiration-based outlook in regards to higher taxes for the wealthy, seeing themselves as someday belonging to the same income bracket, despite their current income.   Mark was generally disappointed by the reactions of Democrats and Republicans to the findings and asked almost whimsically: How open-minded will Americans be?

Mr. Mark closed the discussion by bringing up the current field of potential Republican candidates to challenge President Obama in the 2012 elections.  The cast he anticipates may run in 2012 will be former Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, former Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska, Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich or former Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas.  

The field could change, he emphasized, but Republicans usually like to nominate the next-in-line.  Furthermore, he foresees structural advantages for any 2012 Republican candidate thanks to multiple state houses and governorships also changing hands this election.

While his conclusions were peppered with traces of American political history, Mark also displayed hues of cynicism and savvy unique to Washington political reporters.  Whether intentionally didactic or not, one of the high points of the speech was his view that a multifarious consumption of news is required to stay informed.  A constant diet of one viewpoint from chosen media sources is something he advises against.

"Its not healthy for discussion or for process if youre only getting news from one source, he said, and that definitely needs to change."

 

Return to the Events index page