YOUNG: Democracy's disparate results

By | Sunday, July 6, 2008

• Print
• [-][+] Font Size
• E-Mail Alerts
• Tell a Friend
• Got a Question?
• You Report
• Click-2-Listen

COMMENTARY:

Congressional Republicans are anything but confident following three special election losses and seeing their presidential nominee consistently out-raised in money and out-tallied by the Democrats in primary votes. Conversely, congressional Democrats are ever less guarded in their optimism, having picked up three seats and seeing their long presidential nomination finally over.

Yet, past presidential elections caution both sides. Presidential outcomes are often very different from congressional ones - even for the same party in the same election year.

John McCain's presidential candidacy seems a breath of hope for a Republican Party badly in need of resuscitation. Despite all the negative signs for Republicans - trailing badly in generic balloting and most important issues - Mr. McCain trailed Mr. Obama by only 46 percent to 42 percent in Gallup tracking polls at the end of June. Just over four months from the election, he could very well win the presidency. However, congressional Republicans can take only limited comfort from this.

Many Republican presidents did little for their party's congressional fortunes. In 1984, Ronald Reagan won 59 percent of the popular vote, but Republicans gained just 15 House seats and lost two Senate seats. In 1956, Dwight Eisenhower captured 57 percent of the popular vote but Democrats gained two House seats and one Senate seat. And in 1972, Richard Nixon had an unbelievable 23 percent margin over George McGovern but Republicans gained only 12 House seats and lost two Senate seats.

History is no less sobering to congressional Democrats. Their prolonged presidential primary has swelled voter numbers and party coffers alike, to the point that comparing Mr. Obama to John Kennedy is tempting. But how appealing is it down the ticket, when Kennedy lost 22 House and two Senate seats in his 1960 victory?

Nor is Kennedy's cautionary tale isolated. Since Harry Truman, Democratic presidents have hardly been auspicious for their party in Congress. In 1992, Bill Clinton won while his party lost 11 House seats and gained just one in the Senate. Four years later, Mr. Clinton's 9 percentage point victory gained Democrats just eight House seats; they lost a Senate seat.

History shows both parties their congressional and presidential fates are not necessarily related. But isn't this year different? With America at war, a weak economy, and a Republican president with approval ratings near 30 percent, aren't Democrats fortunes exceptional?

They've been even better before and delivered little. In 1976, Nixon had been disgraced and Gerald Ford had pardoned him; the economy was much worse than today's; abroad, Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos had fallen. Nevertheless, Mr. Ford barely lost to Jimmy Carter and Democrats gained just single House and Senate seats.

Not only are congressional and presidential party fortunes not tied, in one regard they are likely to be split. Since Truman, control of the executive and legislative branches is almost twice as likely to be split - 18 to 10 over the last 28 Congresses - between the parties. Americans are so comfortable splitting control it could be argued they implicitly desire it.

This split is like a political coin toss. On the Republican side, presidential dominance has not helped them with Congress - holding the White House 36 of the last 56 years - but having control of even one house of Congress for only 20 of those years. On the Democratic side, congressional dominance has not aided them with the presidency - holding both houses of Congress for 36 years but the presidency for only 20 years. Neither party has seen its strength in one branch help it succeed in the other.

The presidential candidates in this election likely only reinforce this. Mr. McCain often has been at odds with his congressional brethren - his opposition on many issues earning him the "maverick" label now propelling him. Mr. Obama's message of "change" also is not entirely appealing to his congressional colleagues in charge for the last two years.

Each election - particularly presidential ones - issui generis. Happening only every four years, the same candidates rarely face off more than once, never are national circumstances the same, and campaigns are fought with ever-changing technology and strategies.

Limits to election comparisons are obvious, but neither are elections clean slates. History clearly does tell us a party's presidential and congressional fortunes do not necessarily coincide. If control of both is the yardstick, more often than not, they do not coincide.

Because these fates are not linked, it is unsurprising that candidates run their own races. This in turn further reinforces the disparate outcomes in the White House, Senate and House of Representatives. There is no reason to think this year's election will be any less susceptible to these disparate outcomes than were those of the past.

J.T. Young served in the Treasury Department and the Office of Management and Budget in 2001-04 and as a congressional staff member in 1987-2000.

Click here for reprint permissions!
Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC

Do you have another point of view, photos, audio, video or more information about a story?