• Cover Story
• Table of
  Contents
• Contents By
  Topic
• Columns
  • Brownstein
  • Cook
  • Crook
  • Rauch
  • Stokes
  • Schneider
  • Taylor Jr.
• Regular
  Features
  • Hotline Extra
  • Inside Washington
  • Insiders Poll
  • K Street Corridor
  • People
  • The Week on the Hill

One of the toughest challenges for a party after it wins a big national election is matching its agenda to voters' desires. So, having ridden a message of change to back-to-back victories, the Democratic Party needed to figure out what kind of change the public actually wanted.

In 2006, the key swing voters were weary of a succession of Republican scandals and had lost faith in the Iraq war. Even though Democratic turnout picked up and GOP participation sagged slightly, independents were the determining factor in the election. They sided with Democrats by an 18-point margin, and the Republican majorities in the House and Senate were history.

Two years later, even though the troop surge in Iraq was working and that war had become somewhat less controversial, "time for a change" sentiment against President Bush and his Republican Party grew stronger. The Democratic majorities in Congress increased, and Americans elected Barack Obama to the presidency.

In those elections, it was clear what voters did not want: Bush and GOP majorities on Capitol Hill. Less clear was what they did want. Polls and anecdotal evidence suggest that although disdain for Republicans remains high, the path that President Obama and congressional Democrats are paving is not one that most of the electorate wants to take.

Voters are faced with a dilemma. They don't necessarily want to go back to where they were headed when Republicans were in control, but they aren't enamored of the Democratic course, either.

Despite the controversy swirling around the Democrats' cap-and-trade and health care legislation, what seems to be prompting the sudden skittishness of many purple-state swing voters is the Troubled Asset Relief Program that was put into place last fall during the waning months of the Bush administration. The subsequent federal takeovers of banks and auto companies greatly increased government intervention in the private sector. It is clear from many of the tumultuous and now-infamous town hall meetings over the summer that much of the public's fear and anger appears to be bigger and broader than disapproval of the Democratic plans to overhaul health care. Health care reform was the flashpoint but not the underlying cause of the fervor.

Over the years, the government has given Americans all too many reasons to be skeptical of its efficacy. Certainly, Washington's response to Hurricane Katrina, the size of the budget deficit, and the flawed early decisions about invading Iraq did nothing to increase the public's confidence.

On the other hand, even though the failure of federal officials to sufficiently regulate the financial system and credit markets led to last year's debacle, subsequent actions by Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke and Bush Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson Jr. effectively saved the country from a complete economic meltdown and very possibly a second Great Depression. Bernanke and Paulson were backed up by Bush. Likewise, the Fed chairman is now supported by Obama and his team of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geith-ner and top economic advisers Lawrence Summers and Christina Romer.

I can't imagine that Bush was very enthusiastic about what he eventually agreed to, but he did it nevertheless. He and Obama and their teams should be credited with doing what it took, whether or not it is appreciated by the public, the media, or their parties' members of Congress.

Unfortunately, officials' fear of terrifying the public may have caused them to say too little about the economic abyss we might have fallen into had Uncle Sam not intervened as aggressively as he did. That's ironic, given the widespread skepticism today about whether government can do anything right. To be direct would have stoked fear and pessimism, but holding back encouraged ignorance and misunderstanding.

Regardless of the outcome, once the current health care debate ends both sides will be faced with challenges. Democrats will have to recalibrate the change they are seeking. Republicans will have to demonstrate that they have changed their tune from the bad old days -- if indeed they have. And Republicans will also need to be careful not to derail voter opposition to congressional Democrats.