Yesterday, the New York Times published an editorial lamenting the likely fall of Russ Feingold from his Senate seat representing Wisconsin. Forget for a moment whether they are right or wrong supporting this particular candidate and note the sense of bewilderment the article exudes. Historians will note that the last two years witnessed more government intervention in our lives than any other era of our nation; statists managed to push a universal health care bill upon the American people. The Times, and many statists, seem absolutely puzzled as to why they face annihilation at the polls in a few weeks.
Without realizing it, their attitude reveals the answer. The editorial (and Feingold) state as fact that the Stimulus worked to save millions of jobs and that ObamaCare is a great achievement. Opponents just do not realize the details! "Simplistic untruths" bought by the ignorant masses are what doom the intelligent statist candidate.
Let me put it this way: if our lives are so much better off, we would know it. That is the only detail that matters. People understand their own lives far better than Washington leaders do. All of the made up statistics in the world will not convince a family being evicted from their home and without a bread winner due to the lack of jobs that all is well. Considering the promises made in 2008, it should be no wonder there is anger against the government.
The Wall Street Journal published an editorial that compliments this topic well. It follows the thought of the book The American Voter: large segments of the voting population do not vote based on political philosophy or party identification but rather on how things appear or "feel" at the time of election. The short answer to the statist confusion is that people did not see their lives improve at all under the last two years, but they did notice the enormous bill charged to their account in the form of federal debt. They tried big government, it failed miserably, and they will not try it again.