After an election, winning candidates often declare they have a mandate to take their constituency in a new direction. But there have always been those who are skeptical of the idea that a vote for one candidate is a clear signal voters wholeheartedly support a complete platform.
Part of the problem with the claim of a mandate is that, at best, a mandate can be bestowed only by those citizens who have voted, and since voter turnout in this country is generally low, it’s difficult to say that the outcome of any election represents the view of all the people.
Recent events in Washington, D.C., Connecticut and New York should serve as a warning to winning politicians of the future. The evidence suggests winning does not give you permission to dramatically change course, it only gives you permission to try to change course.
Dems Roar Back
The first case to consider is the Democratic victory for control of Congress in 2006. From Election Night on, Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi and others declared a sweeping mandate for change and specifically an end to the war in Iraq. Upon return to Washington, they learned that while the voters voted for a course correction, they did not necessarily vote for an end to the President’s war policy.
The voters said try something new, but don’t make matters worse by reversing course completely. The new congressional leadership made the mistake of believing their victory represented a complete handover of power from the president to the congress. A fact not supported by their slim new majority, which does not carry with it the power to overturn a presidential veto.
Here in Connecticut, Democrats suffered a similar fate after winning historic veto-breaking majorities in the General Assembly. Returning to the Capitol in January, the House Speaker and Senate President could feel their new agenda-setting powers pulsing through their fists. But it wasn’t to be as they learned a super majority is not a dictatorship and minority Republicans found a way to dominate the agenda.
In New York, newly elected Gov. Eliot Spitzer proclaimed, “The old ways end on day one.” Many days later that is still not the case. Even in a state so dramatically controlled by Democratic office holders, Spitzer’s victory was not permission for a complete break.
Even among Democrats, there are those who are completely on board with Spitzer and those who are not. Spitzer has described himself as a “streamroller” for his take-no-prisoners – you-are-with-me-or-against-me approach. But he discovered even the highly touted “power of the governor’s office” has its limits.
Wake Up Call
By mid-summer, Spitzer found his administration under investigation for ethics violations by fellow Democrat and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. Spitzer’s mandate did not include a pass to abuse the powers of the office. Seven months into his term his over-reach cost him several members of his staff and weakened him going into year two.
Every winning candidate, on Election Night, stands on a stage in some rundown rented hall and claims a mandate for change. “The people believe as I believe, I’m in charge now and tomorrow and from now on we do things my way.” Mistake one happens right there before the oath of office is taken.
History shows the claim to a mandate is mostly wishful thinking. When the people support a candidate’s platform they are really saying, “Give it your best shot.” They are not saying, “Make it so.”
Dean Pagani is a former gubernatorial advisor. His is V.P. of public affiars for Cashman and Katz Integrated Communications in Glastonbury.
