Two words rejected

I hear two words overused right now in the political debate and would like to send them both to the penalty box for a while.

The first: Referendum.

In 1994, the Republicans were dumb enough to believe that the landslide victory they enjoyed in the midterm elections was a referendum on their agenda - the contract with America. It was a referendum - one of confidence in the president at the time, Clinton, and his broad-sweeping healthcare reform plan.

Last year, the Democrats made the same mistake and still haven't figured it out. The landslide last year was a referendum on Bush, not on big government. In fact, Bush was big government, so if anything the referendum was on shrinking government. It was not a mandate (the also-popular synonymous cousin of referendum) to increase deficit spending to drive an expansionist agenda.

I doubt I have a politician who reads here, but just in case, please remember that when there's a landslide election victory, most people are running FROM something, not TOWARD something.

The second: obstructionism.

Any time one party or another can't get bipartisan support for a policy, the other party is labeled overly partisan, or obstructionist. Don't get me wrong - many times there is obstructionism for obstructionism's sake and is really bad for the system. However, the term has been so overused it has become meaningless and cliche. If a group of politicians stands against a policy long enough that the people want passed, they won't be politicians for long. Many if not most of the times I've heard the term used lately (as well as during the 90s when the shoe was on the other foot), what's really happening is that the group in power is trying to force through unpopular policies and can't get votes. Instead of name-calling, they might be better served by moderating their policies to get the votes, particularly those of moderates within their own party.

Obstructionism and referendum, you've both been duly warned.