Mandate for What?

David Kurtz asks a cogent question on Talking Points Memo about the meaning of an Obama win next Tuesday.

One of the most toxic effects of the decline of the two parties as political institutions and the rise of the modern TV-based political campaign, with its cult of personality politics, is that the election becomes a referendum on the candidates themselves, rather than on broad policies or platforms...The peril of the modern political campaign is not its nastiness (come on, we're all adults). It's that it supplants a real debate, so that by the time the election actually happens and a victor is declared, it's not entirely clear what we all collectively just decided. Did we just vote for universal health care, or against that cranky old man and his dimwitted running mate?

So given the terms of the debate this campaign season, the issues facing the country, and the mood of the electorate, and assuming we see an Obama landslide next Tuesday, what does Obama have a mandate for?

I read this post aloud to my wife, one of the smartest people I know, and liked her answer. She reads this election as a referendum on competent leadership. She said none of us is expert enough to solve the health care issue or financial crisis ourselves. However, we can vote for a thoughtful candidate who is capable of consulting those who are experts in the given areas, crafting sensible policy and rallying support to get it passed. She would therefore see a win for Obama as a mandate for that sort of leadership.

Thoughts?

--Ballard Burgher