The Lame Duck

With the election a month behind us, politicians can finally take off their campaign buttons and get down to the business of governing the country.

If only.

November 15 marked the beginning of the "lame duck session" of the 111th Congress, and our legislators are well on their way to getting little to nothing done in the home stretch of an already disappointing term.  Republicans have heightened their obstructionist talk, with all 42 GOP Senators refusing to bring any issue to the floor until the Bush-era tax cuts are extended for everyone and the continuing resolution (CR) is passed to continue funding the government.  Although these are important matters on the Senate's hands, Jay Newton-Small, writing for Time.com, notes that such issues are usually saved until the end of the session, and that this is merely a way for  Republicans to block action on Don't Ask Don't Tell, the new START Treaty, and the DREAM Act.  

So here we are, in another typical lame duck session of Congress only one month after millions of Americans showed their displeasure at the polls with the inaction of our legislators.  But I wonder how the term "lame duck" came do describe this legislative moment, and how it affects our perceptions and expectations of the session.

According to Ed Quillen, a columnist for the Denver Post, the term goes back to 18th century finance, where a "lame duck" was a stock dealer who could not pay of his/her losses, or someone who defaulted on a loan.  The phrase was first used in politics in 1863, and the first "lame duck" president was Calvin Coolidge in the 1920s.  Now, the term is used to describe an elected official in his/her final term, or one who was voted out of office but whose term has not ended.  In addition to this definition, The Oxford American Dictionary also defines "lame duck" as an "ineffectual or unsuccessful person or thing."  And thus, the "lame duck" session of Congress, the one-and-a-half month session destined to be ineffectual, unsuccessful, and, it seems, merely a formality, a buffer period before the inauguration of the next Congress, 

But why must it be so unproductive?

This blog, called "Goodbye Incumbents," points out that 81% of the next Congress beginning in January will be made up of incumbents, or people already in Congress now.  So, although the political balance of this 111th Congress is certainly different from that of the 112th Congress to come, most of the people in there were voted for to keep their jobs.  And plus, the electorate votes for 2 (or 6, in the case of the Senate) year terms, and these legislators have a job they were voted for to do until the day the next term begins.  The country still needs legislators to deal with real issues like the START Treaty and DADT - PM Vladimir Putin has already said that the failure of Congress to ratify the START Treaty this year could push Russia to build up its nuclear arms.  Maybe, if we stopped referring to this important session of Congress, especially after such a divisive election cycle and stagnant action the past two years, as a "lame duck" session, expectations would be higher for our legislators to address the critical issues of the day.  

So here's to a successful, not lame - and not particularly duck-like - rest of this session.

We're all soaked now

On election night, November 2nd, one word seemed to be on every voter's mind and on every pundit's lips: wave.  The midterm election that resulted in Republicans taking control of the House of Representatives and making huge gains in the Senate and statehouses around the country was, as Fox News reported, an "historic" wave, with Republicans "thundering" into Washington.  This metaphor of election as wave is one that has swept the country and that politicians are riding to gain power (see what I mean?).

In my English class this week, we learned about conventional metaphors, or those metaphorical comparisons prevalent in a society's everyday language that influence its conceptual system (for a fuller definition with examples, click here).  The election as wave metaphor has come to define our understanding of elections, with the past 3 elections being called "wave" elections, and the election of 1994 carrying the same label.

So what does the election as wave metaphor mean for our political system, and for our nation as a whole?  The New York Times reporter Matt Bai, in "Another Election, Another Wave," notes the effect of these sweeping wave elections.  Politicians, he claims, take these waves as mandates for power, governing unilaterally because their party won significantly more votes than the opposition.  And it seems, on some level, that both politicians and the rest of us now expect waves every 2 years, with some Republicans already acknowledging that they could loose power in 2012 if they don't embrace tax and spending cuts (see this article in the Philidelphia Inquirer).  This growing expectation of wave elections has led to increased partisanship and rule under perceived "mandates" that are as transient as, well, waves.

In addition, David M. Kennedy, in an opinion piece for The New York Times, draws parallels between the wave elections of late and the paralyzing partisan oscillations (another word with wave connotations) of the late 1800s, the Gilded Age.  The Gilded Age was certainly not a time of memorable political achievements; in fact, it was a time of great corruption and inaction in the face of dire issues.  That sorry trend seems to be repeating itself today.  Although this may mean we will eventually ascend from the partisan shuffle into a successful and beneficial movement like the Progressive movement under Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, right now we seem to be stuck in the political limbo of wave elections.

But, beyond historical comparisons and political punditry, the election as wave metaphor reflects the short-sightedness of voting Americans and those they elect.  A Pew Research poll found that Americans are considerably less happy with the results of this last midterm wave than with previous wave elections.  Clealry, the huge majority in the House and Republican wins elsewhere do not reflect the public opinion of Americans with much proportion.  Americans got swept up in this wave, with the news media and politicians proclaiming it days and weeks before the election even took place.  We have come to understand elections as waves, avenues for wiping out the ruling party and sweeping in the minority for a few years.  With the election as a wave, politicians are not rewarded for making the tough decisions and sacrifices necessary for America's long term stability (just look at the unpopularity of the recent report by the bipartisan deficit commission).  Instead, they must resort to wave-creating, short-sighted partisanship.

The metaphor of election as wave, although it sounds both powerful and refreshing, is really neither, and is certainly not a comparison that will pave the way for American success.  Rather, the US after the November 2nd wave is soaked in stagnation.

P.S.
For a comical interpretation of the election as wave metaphor, watch this video from Jon Stewart's The Daily Show.  As he says, all the phenomena being compared to this election, including the wave, "killed thousands of people."