Is It Really Anti-Incumbent Rage?

I’m wondering about this. This headline for the Blanche Lincoln loss in Arkansas is conventional wisdom; “Anti-Incumbent Rage Bypasses Arkansas“. But I am not sure that’s the conclusion to come to in the elections, at all.

There is anti-establishment rage. There is anti-big government rage. There is anti-tone deaf rage.

There will be some incumbents who do just Jim-Dandy-fine because voters are happy with their elected official and believe in the policies that the politician pushes. In short, it depends on the incumbent.

Generally though, the voters are unhappy about the joblessness, the pay-offs to unions and far lefties, the continued corruption, the hypocrisy and the voracious appetite for control and money while the economy sags.

Democrats and many Republicans participated in getting America to this bad place. If a Republican was principled and voted well, he’s relatively safe. If a Democrat is in a socialist district, he, too is relatively safe. But everyone else–those who directly defied the will of his constituents. Well, he’s in trouble.

So, I don’t buy the whole anti-incumbent thing. I think that’s a simple simon answer to a more complex question. It’s also a way for the Democrats and Republicans to not take difficult looks at themselves and the position they’ve put themselves in with voters.

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!