There is no doubt that the 2010 election cycle was one of the most negative, nasty campaigns in modern political history. Voters were torn between staying the course and changing party control of Congress mid-stream through the Obama administration. Pessimism among voters, politicians, and pundits helped make this election cycle particularly brutish as issues and facts were largely ignored, altered, or left by the wayside.

Despite the vitriol and animosity exhibited this year, I for one am left with a renewed sense of optimism in the future of our country. We clearly have policy challenges presenting high hurdles which will remain elusive until the Congress reconvenes in January. However, there are a number of reasons for my newly minted sense of optimism. I present you with five of them.

A Moderate, Centrist Moment

First, as of press time the Republicans will control 239 seats in the House of Representatives to the Democratic Party’s 188 seats with a number of seats still undeclared. Meanwhile, the Democrats hold a 53-46 edge in the Senate with the Alaska race lacking a declared winner but are leaning toward the Independent Republican, Lisa Murkowski. The conditions are now set for increased cooperation, compromise, negotiation, and deliberation that come along with divided government.

Keep in mind that Republicans controlled none of the institutions within the Executive or Legislative branches for the last two years. There has thus been little incentive for them to make deals with the Democratic Congress or White House. Both parties now have some level of ownership in at least one of the levers of government. Accountability and results ought to be the focus of all four congressional caucuses and the White House. Despite Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s heavily combative rhetoric late last week, both sides stand to gain more from compromise than deeper conflict assuming they are willing to govern rather than focus on the 2012 presidential election.

Additionally, neither party possesses the type of mandate politicians are fond of speaking of after elections. The Congress is split between the Democrats and Republicans and the White House’s ego has been deflated. As such, divided government should produce more moderate and less ideological policy alternatives compared to the Democrat-run government following the 2008 elections or the Republican-run government from 2003-2007 when they had control of the House, Senate, and White House in unison. The lesson here is that nobody has a mandate to make any single agenda the nation’s agenda and the only legitimate path forward is a more moderate, centrist approach.

New Speaker Pledges Civility, Transparency

Second is the opportunity to begin anew in the House of Representatives with a fresh Speaker of the House. John Boehner (R-OH) has been derided in the past by the right as not being sufficiently conservative while liberals think he is Satan incarnate. Boehner delivered a speech on September 30 at the American Enterprise Institute laying out his agenda for reform. Despite receiving little fanfare, this speech was critical because of the pragmatic goals set forth by the Speaker-To-Be. Boehner called for doing away with comprehensive spending bills by breaking them into smaller chunks open to increase scrutiny and oversight. He endorsed a plan known as “CutGo” under which a new government program can only be instituted if an existing one is terminated or reduced, chastised members of both parties for wasting valuable time on feel-good resolutions, and decried the concentration of power in the hands of party leaders.

Boehner also emphasized the need for increased debate, more amendments being offered in the open, and an internal review of all of the House’s committees. On transparency issues he’d like to create a three day waiting period before votes for the purposes of public participation and much deliberation, post committee votes online, allow for webcasts of committee hearings, and wants to post committee transcripts on the internet. The House has the opportunity to become a much better place for thoughtfulness, openness, and responsible spending if Boehner remembers these commitments when he takes the gavel.

A Renewed Non-Interventionist Republican Wing

Third, Rand Paul (R-KY) has the unique opportunity to single-handedly reinvigorate the anti-war wing of the Republican Party in the U.S. Senate. There is a valid reason why Paul was the number one target of Dick Cheney and the neoconservative war hawks during the Kentucky primary. In Paul’s own words: “Part of the reason we are bankrupt as a country is that we are fighting so many foreign wars and have so many military bases around the world.” He also makes a clear case for fighting only constitutionally sound wars: “I believe that when we must fight, we declare war as the Constitution mandates and we fight to win.” Paul’s presences in the Senate could fill the anti-war void that will be left as a result of Russ Feingold’s defeat and could trigger the beginning of a new day for anti-interventionist Republicanism.

Hope for a New Bipartisan Moderate Senate Block

Fourth, Joe Manchin (D-WV) could easily become the voice of a new, credible block of independent moderates in the Senate. Machin’s heartfelt victory speech last Tuesday night was perhaps the most memorable of all that aired on the national cable networks for his folksy but serious tone about why politicians must start making decisions in the interests of the country before those of party or ideology. Alongside Republicans like newly elected Senator Mark Kirk from Illinois and incumbents Scott Brown, Susan Collins, and Olympia Snow and Democrats like Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, Jim Webb, Mark Warner, and Jon Tester, Manchin’s presence could help cultivate a more rational, sensible centrist coalition in the upper chamber.

Rejection of Extreme, Fringe Candidates

Last but not least, I remain optimistic thanks to the good sense of the American voters. Often disparaged as being irrational and unreasonable (sometimes even in this column), voters in states like Nevada, Delaware, New York, Colorado, and most likely Alaska (depending on the final write-in vote tally) had the intellectual capacity to reject the most offensive, fringe Tea Party candidates. Sharron Angle, Christine O’Donnell, Carl Paladino, Ken Buck, and Joe Miller were rejected because the people knew better than to entrust their government to such bizarre characters. The American public, despite its occasional penchant for falling asleep at the wheel, again proved its ability to recognize threats to the common good when they see them.

In conclusion, while it has been disheartening to hear conservatives and Republicans thump their chests in victory and liberals and Democrats bemoan the fall of the republic over the course of the last week. If anything, we should realize the outstanding opportunity to turn around the ship of state and put the rancor behind us in 2011. I for one have high hopes for a more level-headed, centrist approach from the House, Senate, and White House to help revive this great nation.