Obama's "Shellacking"!!!

I did not expect to find “shellacking” in a conventional dictionary so I went online. Dictionary.com defined it as “an utter defeat”, “a sound thrashing” or “to defeat or trounce” while the World English Dictionary notes that it is a mainly US or Canadian slang meaning a “complete defeat” or “sound defeat”. I was subsequently surprised to find my good old New Webster’s Dictionary with essentially the same meaning-“to defeat by a very large margin”! By his own admission, that was what President Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats got from the Republicans in the recent US mid-term elections.
It was a stinging chastisement as Republicans picked up (at least) 60 House seats and 6 in the Senate taking the Republican tally to a House majority of 239 displacing Nancy Pelosi as Speaker, and narrow minority of 47 in the Senate, to the Democrats 186 and 52 respectively. It is clear that US voters delivered a categorical thumping to Obama who they had elected overwhelmingly just two years earlier. What is not so clear is why? The usual explanation is that it was about jobs and the economy; that US voters always punish incumbents for poor economic conditions; that Obama had done too little to convince voters he would restore jobs and prosperity. I would love to accept this conventional logic, but it just doesn’t seem to me like the whole truth!
I don’t believe American voters are so unsophisticated that they did not appreciate the scale of the economic and financial calamity Obama inherited from the Republicans. Did US voters really expect that the destruction of output, wealth and jobs wrought during the US Great Recession of 2008-2009 could be reversed in just two years? Could the voters have so completely forgotten that Republicans created the mess with their combination of wars, deficits and hands-off deregulation such that in anger, they would return power to the same Republicans? Could US voters be so angry about slow progress towards recovery that they would in effect vote for no progress at all that the new gridlock would lead to? Did Obama’s fundamental actions on economic stimulus, healthcare reform and financial sector regulation count for nothing at all? If this is the whole truth, would it not reflect badly on the utilitarian value of democracy and suggest that the masses may often act against their own enlightened self-interest?
But as I mentioned earlier I am not convinced this was all about jobs and the economy! For one I suspect a major failure of political strategy and communication on the part of the Democrats who appeared tentative, timid and lacking self-assurance as they abandoned the political space to the “Tea Party” onslaught. Obama himself continues in pursuit of his idealistic but elusive America that is neither red nor blue; neither Democratic nor Republican; neither liberal nor conservative. Of course political realities may be different as angry conservatives deployed everything in their vast political and financial arsenal towards undermining and destroying him.
I suspect this was also about campaign finance. The US Supreme Court may have delivered an enduring strategic advantage to the Republicans with the ruling removing caps on corporate political donations. So while individuals, who form the bulk of Democratic donors, have restrictions on their political donations, companies who favour mostly Republicans may make unlimited campaign contributions. That advantage may have had decisive impact on this race, and except that ruling is reversed, future races as well.
Deploying their financial advantage in organisation and advertising, the Republicans and their Tea Party allies successfully but unjustifiably demonised Obama as an anti-business liberal engaged in wealth re-distribution and seeking to over-tax and over-regulate businesses; a socialist who wanted to nationalise the economy and spend his way to recovery; and a statist who through healthcare and other policies would foster big government and lead a government take-over of citizens’ rights and lives. All these supported with barely-disguised racism and “we want our America back” posturing from the pulpit, conservative rallies and Fox News Channel! The Democrats never quite rose to the propaganda challenge and failed to summon the energy and enthusiasm to confront Republican and Tea Party scaremongering. Unfortunately Obama was professorial rather than engaging. He assumed that the facts would speak for him, and that reason would prevail over disinformation and fear, and failed to connect at an empathic level with independents and even Democrats.
I suspect right-wing demonization of Obama proved devastating due to a “pre-existing condition”-American voters were themselves increasingly unsure of Obama on the issue of “American values” even if they couldn’t say so to pollsters. What did Obama really believe in? Who is he? Is he an American or Kenyan? A Christian or Muslim? A centrist or far-left liberal? Why does he seem overtly focused on the Islamic world? Why does he support the “Ground Zero” mosque? Why did he bow waist-level before the Saudi King? Will he abandon Israel under pressure? Is he determined to elevate the place of gays and lesbians in US society? I suspect that not being sure of where Obama seeks to lead US society on these “cultural” issues, American Republicans and Independents voted to impose restraints on his power. And many Democrats, acquiesced by staying at home!