Sic transit gloria mundi

The 2010 Election is over. Results are all in, counted, and announced. In this state, we now have the possibility of a casino coming to town soon in Oxford, which is interesting in itself, but not really what I want to discuss at this point. What is more interesting to me is the shift (yet again) in "power" (if you can call it that) from one party to another.
For the first time in most people's lives, we have a Republican governor elect, a Republican house, and a Republican Senate in this state. In fact, nationwide, there was a phenomenal shift from blue to red. Two years ago, the cycle was performed in reverse. Eight years before, the cycle happened once again. Is anyone else out there dizzy?
Why do Americans vote overwhelmingly for one party over the other time and again? Experts all seem to have their theories, so I thought I would add mine. First, some caveats:
1. I'm not a political expert. I'm an average American Joe, with perhaps a slightly better than average level of cynicism.
2. Second, this is my opinion, so please don't take it as gospel. A prophet, seer, oracle, or disciple I am not.

Having said all that, let's take a look at what has happened historically. Historically, business (aka the economy) has done well under Republican presidents/Congress, and social programs tend to suffer. When the Democrats are in "power", the opposite is true. Now before someone starts saying "Wait a minute...", let me remind everyone that, for instance, the economy during Bill Clinton's reign was mostly the work of the Republicans during George Bush I's term, as it takes several years for policy changes to actually effect the economy, despite what some experts claim.
Thus, when Republicans are in power, social programs tend to suffer, which gets Democrats elected. When the Democrats are in power, business suffers, which brings the economy down, which gets Republicans elected. Of course, this is very basic interpretation, and yes both parties occasionally screw up their specialties. A great example is the last few years of the second George Bush's second term. Of course, he was also spending money like a Democrat, so go figure.
My belief is that both philosophies are necessary for the benefit of the country. We need social programs, but just enough to help people up onto their feet, not enough to replace a full time job. On the other hand, we need business growth, but not enough to overwhelm and flood the market. Thus, the reason for the swing in this country. The average person can sense the need for this swing, once they can get by the D vs. R subject line. We need business growth, and when we have business growth, then we can grow social programs.
This brings me to my point, and the title of this entry. "Sic transit gloria mundi" loosely translates as all glory is fleeting. In other words, a warning to those newly elected officials- you are elected on a high. this high, however, does not give you the right to push extremist viewpoints. Listen to your constituents. You were elected because of the economy. Fix it, or better yet, allow it to fix itself. Then start worrying about social programs.